Skeletons Fighting over the Body of a Hanged Man

In a room, two skeletons fight each other. Both are wearing women's clothes. One is wearing a long skirt, a grey scarf and a strange high pointed hat topped with, lying on its back, a dead green bird. A long tongue dangles from the skeleton's open mouth. The other skeleton wears a slightly shorter red skirt, black boots, a connecting coat and a hat with flowers. In its hand, it holds a red parasol. One skeleton pokes threateningly with a long corner broom against the chest of the skeleton with the red skirt. The latter swings a broom with a short handle. Between the two, shown in foreshortened perspective, is a third skeleton in women's clothing. This one is reaching with its left and right hand for the skirts of the warring skeletons. Between the two warring skeletons, against the wall behind, hangs a character, dressed in a long white vest, with black boots, one of which is badly damaged. This has the face of a Japanese devil mask and from his mouth dangles a very long dark tongue.¹ The figure appears to be suspended by a dark rope. On his chest is a sign hanging from a rope around his neck. On that plate is written civet. The four figures are connected by several thin, dark ropes. In the front left is a skeleton wearing a top hat and holding a bottle. The figure wears a white shirt and green tabard and black boots. To the right, the face of a mask emerges, pointing a finger at the character with the bottle. The room is bare with a simple plank floor. The wall at the back has a high dark blue plinth, just above it a narrow light green band and a second green band above the doorways. To the left and right, there is an open door. Through those doors, a number of masks enter the room. On the right we see six masks with the appearance of characters from the Belgian folk carnival, one has the head of a rodent. Through the left doorway, six masks depicting characters from Africa and Asia emerge. Both groups are led by an armed character. One has a razor in his hand the other a kitchen knife. The skeletons, the hanged and some masked characters all have dark hands, as if wearing gloves.

The interior is probably that of Ensor's attic studio, which we also recognise in The Astonishment of Mask Wouse (1889), Painting Skeletons (1896) and Skeletons in the Studio (1900). Though Ensor added a doorway on the left. The masks are the same ones Ensor previously depicts in The Entry of Christ into Brussels in 1889 (1888-90), The Astonishment of Mask Wouse (1889) or The Intrigue (1890). Ensor also used the hat with flowers and the red parasol in The Astonishment of Mask Wouse (1889).

Following in Libby Tannenbaum's footsteps, Gert Schiff has suggested reading the painting as the portrayal of the strained relations between Ensor's housemates: his alcoholic father, his mother, live-in aunt Mimi and his sister Mitche. The hanged man destined, according to the inscription civet, to end up in a ragout would then be an alter ego of the artist. Letters sent by James and occasionally Mitche Ensor to Ernest and Mariette Rousseau-Hannon confirm that, at least during the last years of his life, Ensor's father wandered around Ostend several times for long periods drunk and was occasionally hospitalised. But there is no mention yet of discord between the other members of the family, which only surfaces in the letters of the 1990s. Even in other cases such as The Intrigue (1890), the idea that the characters presented depict situations from family life turns out to be unfounded.²

In Ensor's work, the skeleton sometimes personifies death, a menacing character, but most often skeletons are alter egos for human beings. As a skeleton, every human action inevitably becomes absurd.

Alcohol abuse, especially among workers, increased during the 19th century in the industrialised world, and measures to address this social problem were devised by progressive and conservative politicians and writers until the 20th century. The idea that men, in singleness bourgeois, are often and easily victimised by the reprehensible seductive arts of all kinds of women was very popular at the end of the 19th century, and the literature, theatre, opera, and visual arts of those days are permeated by this theme.³ Neither motif is presented in a narratively coherent manner in this painting. Yet there is in fact no reason to connect representations of seductive ladies and femmes fatales or aspects of drinking in James Ensor's work with his biography. Three ladies compete with each other. Are the flower hat and the dead green bird enough to recognise prostitutes in them? One has lost out. Characters fighting with each other and other forms of aggression we see Ensor's work several times from 1886 onwards. These include the etchings Christ Insulted (1886), The Scourging (1886), The Fight of the Liceheads Desired and Baked (1888), Devils Rousting Angels and Archangels (1888), The Murder (1888), The Joke of the Elephant (1888). Often the fight takes on a macabre and absurd character. The eye sockets of all skeletons and masks feature an eyeball or an eye: they are alive. These living dead, skeletons, fight a pointless battle over a dead body. In this respect, the depiction is similar to Skeletons Fighting over a Buckling (1891), scenes in which carnival guests threaten death or the Skeletons in the Studio (1900) and Fair with Blood Sausage (1901). In the scenes from a photo novel that may have been made on 15 April 1892, Ensor and his younger friend Ernest Rousseau Jr play out similar fight scenes in the dunes where they attack each other with bones and skulls. In the painting, Ensor makes grateful use of the varied facial expressions of the surprised, happy or furious masks but the role of these folk and non-Western mask characters, who enter the room through the doorways on the left and right, armed with a knife, is not clear: do they come to the aid of the hanged mask character or do they take sides with one of the fighting ladies. The tongue hanging out of the hanged man's mouth shows that the man is dead. Ensor had a particular preference for depicting long tongues. In Skeletons in Travesty (1896), male and female skeletons kiss each other with extremely long tongues.

The frontal depiction of several characters in a bare room with the doors swinging open at the back has reminded several authors of a stage scene. The skeletons and the hanged man are connected by a few threads. As a result, the scene recalls puppet theatre, as it was rediscovered in the 2nd half of the 19th century.⁴ The hanging man is short and looks somewhat as a puppet. The pose of the contending skeletons reminded Lydia Schoonbaert of a print after Botticelli, while Vanbeselaere thinks of Bruegel's The Battle Between Lent and Carnival (1559).⁵ Whether Ensor knew this composition we do not know but he was already an aficionado of Bruegel's art around 1890 and he found in Bruegel's prints models for satires in panorama such as Baths in Ostend (1890). Ensor was also an aficionado of Goya's art who presents fighting characters in a similar manner several times in his prints. ⁶ Ensor rendered the skeleton that fell between the contending ladies in foreshortened form. Like the composition at half-length employed by Ensor in the etch Caesar’s Denarius (1889) and The Intrigue (1890), here again he employs a mode of representation rarely seen in the 19th century. Whether he was inspired by a reproduction of a Renaissance painting such as Mantegna's famous Lamentation of the Dead Christ (c.1480), we do not know - so to what extent he here quotes a religious motif while swaning we do not know either.

The design is rather sketchy. Some motifs, almost all hands, are rendered extremely succinctly. To improve the legibility of the garments, contours are accentuated here and there. A rudimentary rendering of facial features is also typical of the masks Ensor uses, adding to the pictorial coherence of the painting. In this painting, however, Ensor does not use the prominent decorative, expressive and whimsical arabesques that are characteristic of the drawings and paintings on small panels Ensor produces in these years. The character appearing at the bottom right (is it a mask or a caricature?), pointing to the fallen drunken skeleton in the other corner or the defeated lady against the floor, was not part of the initial design and was applied by Ensor over the dry layers of paint.

In the still lifes Ensor painted from 1889, he began to experiment with working out the background as an important component of the picture. Occasionally, he evokes mother of pearl. It is difficult to make out whether Ensor intended to elaborate the wall at the back in a similar way. The painting was badly damaged and heavily restored at the end of World War II in exactly that zone.

Ensor showed this work at Les XX in February 1891. This means that the painting was fully or mostly completed before the end of 1890. The iconography did not please everyone but a conservative critic like Gustave Lagye, nevertheless appreciated ses qualités de franc coloriste et sa pâte solide. Je lui laisse pour compte ses masques, ses pendus et ses squelettes (...).⁷

Gert Schiff, Ensor the Exorcist, Moshe Barash & Lucy Freeman Sandler (ed.), Art the Ape of Nature. Studies in Honor of HW Janson, New York, 1981.
Herwig Todts, Squelettes se disputant un pendu, Lydia Schoonbaert (ed.), James Ensor, Paris-Musées, 1990.
Xavier Tricot, James Ensor. Leven en werk. Oeuvrecatalogus van de schilderijen, Brussels: Mercatorfonds, 2009, nr. 334.

The work is painted in oil on a commercially produced, regular, plain weave canvas. The ground is white and lead-based and applied in a thin and even layer. The ground is visible here and there, for example, around the edges of the figures. This layer shows some visible wear and tear that may have occurred while the work was being attached to its wood panel. During this restoration process, tacking margins of the work were also trimmed.

There is no carbon-based underdrawing present. Ensor may have added a painted sketch in blue, black and burgundy. The figures were painted first. Then the background was added with paintstrokes of zinc and lead white paint. The work was painted both wet on wet and wet on dry. The brushwork ranges from very pasty mid-sized brushstrokes, to diluted paint, to fine and dry brushstrokes. Various sorts of brushes were used with the occasional use of a palette knife as well as the back end of the paintbrush to scratch into the paint.

The pigment use was determined from MA-XRF scans and is incomplete. The pigments found are zinc white, lead white, vermilion and a burgundy-red organic pigment, Emerald or Scheele's green, chrome yellow, bone or ivory black, and in all likelihood, synthetic ultramarine.

The painting was severely damaged in 1944 by flying glass from a V-bomb attack in the vicinity of the museum and was restored by C. Bender in 1945. He glued the tears, filled and retouched lacunae and mounted the canvas on a plywood panel. The retouching of the work was poorly executed. The retouches are visible and conspicuous as a result. Parts of the original paint layer have been overpainted.
The painting is covered by a transparent grey layer that follows the forms of the composition. It is not clear whether Ensor added this grey layer or whether it is the consequence of a restoration. There are localised protrusions in the paint layer as well as the presence of what are probably wax beads.

This is a commercially produced, regular, plain weave canvas. It is most probably a linen canvas, but this has not been tested.

In the past (1945), the canvas was mounted on a plywood panel after suffering damage from a V-bomb attack in the vicinity of the museum in 1944. The restoration was carried out in 1945; the report by C. Bender is dated 15 July 1945. During this process, the tears were glued (see x-ray), the lacunae filled and retouched, and the canvas mounted on a new support (a plywood panel). This involved the use of wax and most probably heat and pressure. A rigid backing was added to the rear of the panel which has deprived the canvas of all ease of movement.

In 2001, the work suffered water damage as a consequence of water seeping into the museum gallery. This mostly wetted the back of the panel. Damage to the front was limited. The adhesion between the original canvas and its new support appear not to have been affected by this. There is good adhesion between the two supports and the condition of the support is currently stable.

The ground was commercially applied; it is thin and even, and white in colour. MA-XRF shows that the ground is lead-based.

The canvas structure remains clearly visible. This may have been reinforced through the historical restoration of the work. The original canvas was mounted on a rigid wooden support, with pressure, and possibly friction, applied to the front. There is wear and tear, especially where the ground layer was left visible, mostly along the edges of the painting where brown paper was applied. This can also be seen in the eye sockets and around the jawbones of the skeleton at lower left. Above the edge of his hat, we can see the original white colour of the ground layer.

The tacking margins of the original canvas were trimmed during this restoration process resulting in the loss of information about the canvas’ original ground. No tacking margins survive. The ground layer is well preserved beneath the brown paper applied to the edges.

There is no carbon-based underdrawing visible in the infrared image. However, it is clear that the artist laid out the areas where he would add the main figures. The figures were probably sketched in with paint, but this sketch is almost completely covered with paint. The artist probably used several colours for this sketch, namely dark blue/black and burgundy. This colour appears again in various figures, from the main protagonists to the skeleton at bottom left. These are always very minute traces.

The work is built up in oil paint over a white ground layer. The ground layer is visible in some areas, for example, around the edges of the figures. This is very hard to see without magnification, as both the background colour and ground layer are white. The UV image, shows a distinct boundary between the ground layer and subsequent paint layer.

The yellow line marks the boundary between the ground layer and paint layer. The paint layer reveals a very specific green fluorescence typical of zinc white. Above this, in the areas outlined in black, the use of lead white (with its somewhat bluish fluorescence) can be seen. These brushstrokes are applied over the zinc white. This playing with different shades of white can be found in other works by Ensor (The Intrigue, Chinoiseries, 1906 version).

The areas enclosed by the red dotted line indicate retouches which cover large parts of the original paint layer.

When we look at the figures in greater detail, we can see that the main lines of the entire composition were determined from the start. In the examples below, we can see the clear outlining of the figures (black arrow) and the pinkish-grey colour of the background (white arrow). In most cases, there is also a narrow area between the fore- and background where the ground layer (yellow arrow) remains visible. This indicates that Ensor painted the figures first and only then filled in the background colour. The lines of the wooden floorboards are not present under the figures.

Furthermore, the pinkish-grey brushstrokes follow the shapes of the figures nicely; we can see this clearly around the skeleton’s shoe on the right. The lower edge of the shoe also clearly shows that the background was created quite quickly after the figures had been painted, while the paint was still wet. The blue of the shoes was picked up in the pinkish-grey brushstroke.

An exception to this is the mask at lower far right, at the level of the signature. This area was painted wet on dry. The paint layer of the floorboards was already dry when the mask was added; as a result, the texture of the underlying paint layer is still visible. Some of the brushstrokes of this mask are thinly applied with heavily diluted paint. It is not entirely clear whether the chin of the mask runs beneath the R of the signature, or around it.

Coarse brushstrokes from an underlying layer are present beneath the figure group on the right side of the work; these are most easily seen under raking light. This underlying paint layer was applied with a fairly wide brush with stiff, flat bristles (40 to 50 mm). This may be an additional white layer over the ground layer.

The brushwork varies from very pasty mid-sized brushstrokes, to diluted paint, to fine and dry brushstrokes. Various sorts of brushes were employed with the occasional use of a palette knife, as well as the back end of the paintbrush to scratch into the paint.
Sporadically, fingerprints are found in the paint layer.

The paint is generally applied quite thick, with a bristle brush or palette knife. This means that the artist picked up quite a lot of paint with his brush and did not dilute it before applying it to the canvas. Furthermore, much of the painting was done wet on wet, with previously applied colours intermixed into subsequently applied brushstrokes. The brushes used had stiff, flat bristles, presumably boar bristle. Their thickness varies from 2 to 12 mm.
The palette knife used is also mid-sized, resulting in 0.5 to 2 cm marks.

The white highlight on the cheekbone (red dotted line) is a good example of Ensor’s use of impasto touches. The large amount of paint on the brush causes accumulations of paint to form at the bottom or side of the brushstrokes. This is best seen under raking light.

The skull of the left skeleton is painted with short, direct brushstrokes, placed next to and overlapping each other. Often, several colours are mixed directly on the canvas (black arrow). The blue outlining of the skull has been worked out with a much finer brush, using undiluted paint (green arrow).

In this region, a palette knife has been utilised both for the skeleton’s blue coat and the pink background. The coat displays a fairly thick application of paint, while the background paint has been spread across the surface using the palette knife (indicated by the yellow arrow).

Another use of the palette knife can be found in the skeleton’s green scarf in the lower left corner. There is a combination present of brushstrokes made with a fairly fine hog hair brush (approx. 0.5 cm) and strokes applied with a fairly narrow palette knife where some pressure was used when applying paint. As a result, the paint is extremely thin wherever the pressure applied to the knife was greatest, with a slightly greater concentration of paint to each side.

As well as applying paint with a palette knife, the artist also used the back end of the paintbrush to scratch paint away. This is visible in the burgundy red motifs on the skeleton’s dress (white arrow). Furthermore, we again see the artist working in fairly smooth, small strokes, often wet on wet.

The artist also used his thumbs to dab the paint. This can be seen in the area just behind the skeleton’s back. There is no indication of the deliberate use of fingerprints to add texture to the paint.

The MA-XRF scans detected the use of vermilion, a red pigment Ensor used throughout his oeuvre. Visual examination also reveals the use of a burgundy red, probably as an organic pigment to which the technique used is not sensitive. Lead white is present both in the ground and the paint layer. A second white pigment was detected with MA-XFR, namely zinc white. It is present in the original paint layer and in the retouches. A strong green fluorescence is visible on the UV image, also showing the presence of zinc white. Copper (Cu) and arsenic (As) were detected in the green paint, which indicates the use of Emerald or Scheele’s green. As Emerald green has previously been detected in The Intrigue (1890, inv. 1856, KMSKA), we assume the same pigment was used in Skeletons Fighting over the Body of a Hanged Man. Chromium was detected in the yellow/orange-coloured areas, indicating the use of chrome yellow. Calcium was measured in the black paint, indicating bone or ivory black. Nothing was detected in the blues. Synthetic ultramarine, which is not detectable with MA-XRF, may have been used. The false colour infrared image was used to identify the pigment. The false colour infrared image was used to identify the pigment. The Civet’s blue shoe shows a deep red burgundy colour in the false colour image, suggestive of ultramarine.¹

Lower right:
ENSOR
1891

The signature ENSOR was added in blue, brown/red and black paint. Below this, 1891 was added in fine lines. This may have been done in pencil or black paint.

Due to the damage suffered from the bomb explosion in 1944, and the painting’s subsequent restoration, we must rely on photographic documents from before 1944 to reconstruct the original white background. A photograph from Grégoire Le Roy’s publication of 1922², clearly reveals how Ensor played with creating texture in his paint layers, contrary to what today’s rather densely painted version would lead us to believe.

The texture of the paint layer is easy to see when the normal light image is compared with the raking light image. The traces left in the paint by the stiff hog bristles are clearly visible under raking light. This contrasts strongly with the somewhat messy retouches applied with a palette knife and brush. These can be clearly differentiated under normal lighting as being somewhat warmer in colour. At top left, we can see how the artist first applied a rather fluid layer of fairly untextured zinc white which he then scratched at with the back end of his paintbrush (black arrow).

The work was badly damaged by glass shards in the Second World War during a bomb attack in the vicinity of the museum on 13/10/1944. This caused numerous tears in the support (shown in red on the overview); a substantial part of the paint layer was also lost. The damage is documented in C. Bender’s treatment report of 15/07/1945 and in photographs from the museum and the Belgian Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK) in the appendices.

As previously mentioned, the X-ray provides a clear image of the tears, and furthermore, we can also detect damage in the form of paint loss under the current retouches and overpainting (dark areas on the overview). These images show how the restoration process went well beyond retouching the paint loss. A large area of the reasonably intact area around the paint losses was overpainted during this process (white areas on the overview). This is mainly the case of the patches in the white background, which are also clearly visible on the MA-XRF scans for calcium (Ca-K), zinc (Zn-K) and antimony (Sb-L).

The restoration report does not record the materials used to retouch the damage. Thanks to tests carried out during treatment in 2002, we know that this overpainting cannot be removed with the usual solvent mixtures without damaging the original paint layer.

More recently, water seepage was detected in a few of the museum galleries on 23/07/2001, following a fire. Skeletons Fighting over the Body of a Hanged Man was one of the works which suffered damage. This was mostly to the new wooden support and the frame. The water lifted plaster particles and gilding from the frame and distributed them over the paint surface. The work was restored in 2003. Surface cleaning was done with saliva which removed most of the gilding; the most tenacious particles were removed with a scalpel. However, gold leaf traces can still be detected here and there on the paint surface, as shown on the photos below.
This restoration also showed how extremely sensitive the red and green tones are to the slightest friction during cleaning.

There is a very thin grey layer covering part of the paint layer; this has also been noticed on other works by Ensor. It is still unclear whether this is an original paint layer or the side effect of a varnish or restoration. The layer can be removed with a mixture of 2% triammonium citrate in water.

If we look very closely, we can see that in many places, the grey layer follows the shape of the composition very precisely. This can be seen on the Civet's shoes and elsewhere. This layer is clearly delineated above the left shoe in particular. It therefore seems unlikely that this is a symptom of deterioration, but further research is needed to ascertain whether this was applied deliberately by the artist.

A very localised phenomenon occurs in the blue paint layer of the left-hand skeleton’s coat. White dots appear to protrude from the paint layer; these appear to be closely related visually to lead soaps. This is most pronounced in the layer most heavily mixed with white. It is still unclear what these protrusions are.

Furthermore, in many places there are beads on top of the paint layer. These scatter the light falling on the surface, causing the paint layer to appear matt in those places. Under the stereo microscope their consistency appears somewhat wax-like. This phenomenon has also been observed in other works by James Ensor in the museum’s collection (i.e. The Astonishment of the Mask Wouse).

In most places, these beads appear to lie on top of the paint layer, but here and there, they appear to be mixed into the paint layer. This phenomenon may have something to do with how the works were restored in the past. Further research is needed to establish this.

It is not clear whether the work is covered with a varnish layer. According to Cor Bender’s report, a layer of wax was applied after restoration.

Collection of Mrs Cwalosinski, Brussels, 1909; Breckpot, art gallery; donated to the museum by a group of Friends of the Museum including Rosa von Gemmingen, Mrs Georges Born, Mr Alphonse Aerts, Mr Henri Fester, Mr Charles Franck, Mr François Franck, Mr Louis Franck, Mr Laurent Fierens, Mr Charles Good, Mr Théo Kreglinger, Mr Ivan Maquinay, Mr Enrique Mistler, Mr Max Osterrieth and Mr Maurice Speth, 1921.

1944: Damage to the support and pictorial layer by glass shards during a V-bomb attack in the vicinity of the museum on 13/10/1944.
1945: Restoration by C. Bender, report dated 15/07/1945. Canvas mounted on a wooden support. Specifies that a wax layer had been added.
10/06/1999: Adjustment of the rabbet of the frame and installation of a new hanging system; retouching of the edges of the work.
02/09/2000: Intervention report recording surface cleaning (saliva) and stabilization of raised paint with gelatine glue, retouches with Paraloid B-72 and pigments.
23/07/2001: Report on damage following water leak into the gallery – damp predominantly in the back of the panel, but also problems at the front, namely raised paint flakes and depositions of gold and plaster particles from the frame on the paint layer.
12/08/2002: Report following tests to remove overpainting (M. Postec) – conclusion: difficult to remove without causing damage to the original. Report of raised paint flakes in the paint layer. Displaced overpainting next to the 'hanged man' and fragile area on the left foot and leg of the hanged man.
05/03/2003: Treatment report (by N. Laquière) reporting surface cleaning (saliva – sensitivity of reds and greens), removal of traces of gold leaf with scalpel, no stabilisation required, degraded glue stains removed (ethyl acetate [5], THF [35], water [45]).
29/09/2006: Stabilisation of a few miniscule, raised paint flakes in the central area and elsewhere
10/10/2006: Stabilisation of small, raised paint flakes
07/10/2008: Record of the loss of a blue paint flake (Herwig Todts) in the dress of the right-hand skeleton
08/2008: Placement of safety glass
12/2008: Retouching of old lacunae
2016: condition report

1891, Brussels, Palais des Beaux-Arts, Les XX. Brussels. Eighth annual exhibition, no. 3;
1920, Brussels, Galerie Georges Giroux, James Ensor, no. 35;
1921, Antwerp, Kunst van Heden. Exhibition 1921, no. 82;
1926, Bern, Musée des Beaux-Arts et Kunsthalle de Berne, Exposition de l'Art Belge ancien et moderne, no. 219;
1929, Brussels, Palais des Beaux-Arts, James Ensor, no. 188;
1949, Charleroi, Salles de la Bourse, Cercle Artistique et Littéraire de Charleroi. XXIIIme Salon, no. 27, image;
1950, Bosvoorde, Salons van 't Hoog Huis, 5th Exhibition, no. 20;
1951, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, James Ensor. Retrospective, no. 90, image no. 71;
1951, New York, The Modern Museum of Art, James Ensor, no. 45, image, p. 19;
1951, Boston, The Institute of Contemporary Art, James Ensor, no. 45, image, p. 19;
1951, New York, The Modern Museum of Art, James Ensor, no. 45, image p. 19;
1951, St. Louis, City Art Museum, James Ensor, no. 45, image, p. 19;
1952, Paris, Musée d'Art Moderne, Masterpieces of the XXth Century, no. 24;
1952, London, The Tate Gallery, XXth Century Masterpieces. An exhibition of paintings and sculpture, no. 24;
1954, Paris, Musée National d'Art Moderne, James Ensor, no. 55;
1957, Bordeaux, Galerie des Beaux-Arts, Bosch Goya et le Fantastique, no. 244;
1958, Leopoldstad, Vijftigste verjaardag van Belgisch Congo. Grote figuren van de Belgische schilderkunst der laatste halve eeuw, no. 2;
1958, Elisabethstad, Vijftigste verjaardag van Belgisch Congo. Grote figuren van de Belgische schilderkunst der laatste halve eeuw, no. 2;
1958, Leopoldstad, Vijftigste verjaardag van Belgisch Congo. Grote figuren van de Belgische schilderkunst der laatste halve eeuw, no. 2;
1958, Leopoldstad, Vijftigste verjaardag van Belgisch Congo. Grote figuren van de Belgische schilderkunst der laatste halve eeuw, no. 2;
1959, Krefeld, Museum Haus Lange, James Ensor (no catalogue);
1960, London, Marlborough Fine Art Limited, James Ensor. 1860-1949; A retrospective centenary exhibition, no. 59;
1960, Oostend, Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Feestpaleis, James Ensor, no. 63, image;
1961, Otterlo, Rijksmuseum Kröller-Müller, Ensor. 1860/1949, no. 44, image;
1961, Rotterdam, Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Ensor. 1860/1949, no. 44, image;
1963, Basel, Kunsthalle, James Ensor, no. 58, image no. 58;
1963, Münster, Landesmuseum Münster, James Ensor, no. 58, image no. 58;
1964, Arnhem, Gemeentemuseum, Werkelijkheid en verbeelding. Belgische surrealisten, no. 18, image;
1964, Munich, Haus der Kunst, Secession. Europäische Kunst um die Jahrhundertwende, no. 136;
1968, Bruges, Provinciaal Hof, Vlaamse Symbolisten;
1968, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, James Ensor.
1970, Paris, l'Orangerie, L'Art Flamand d'Ensor à Permeke;
1970, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, En liten bok om Ensor, no. 104, image p. 64;
1971, London, The Royal Academy of Arts, Ensor to Permeke. Nine Flemish Painters 1880-1950, no. 117;
1972, Stuttgart, Württembergischer Kunstverein, Ensor. Ein Maler aus dem späten 19.Jahrhundert, no. 39, image p. 103;
1972, Kamakura, The Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor Exhibtion, no. 21, image;
1972, Nagoya, Aichi Prefectural Museum of Art, James Ensor Exhibition, no. 21, image;
1972, Nagoya, Prefectoraal Museum Aichi, Tentoonstelling James Ensor, no. 21, image;
1972/ 1973, Kamakura, Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor Exhibition, no. 21, image;
1976/ 1977, Chicago, The Art Institute of Chicago, Ensor, no. 35, image;
1977, New York, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Ensor, no. 35, image;
1983, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, James Ensor, no. 88, image p. 167;
1983, Zürich, Kunsthaus Zürich, James Ensor, no. 81, image p. 265;
1983/ 1984, Kobe, The Modern Museum of Art, James Ensor, no. 51, image p. 69;
1984, Kamakura, The Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor, no. 51, image p. 69;
1984, Saitama, The Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor, no. 51, image p. 69;
1984, Sendai, Miyagi Museum of Art, James Ensor, no. 51, image p. 69;
1986/ 1987, Newport Beach, Newport Harbor Art Museum, Flemish Expressions. Representational painting in the twentieth century, no. 29, image p. 47;
1987, Fort Lauderdale, Museum of Art, Flemish Expressions. Representational painting in the twentieth century, no. 29, image p. 47;
1988, Rotterdam, Museum Boymans Van Beuningen, Wegbereiders van het modernisme. Ensor. Hodler. Kruyder. Munch, no. 9, image;
1990, Paris, Musée du Petit Palais, James Ensor, no. 167, image p. 202;
1991, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, In dienst van de kunst. Antwerps mecenaat rond 'Kunst van Heden' (1905-1959). Retrospective exhibition, no. 68, image p. 110;
1993, Utrecht, Centraal Museum, James Ensor. 1860-1949; Schilderijen, tekeningen en grafiek. Een selectie uit Belgisch en Nederlands bezit, no. 32, image p. 83;
1993/ 1994, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, In depot / uit depot. De modernen in het koninklijk museum;
1999/ 2000, Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Ensor, no. 100, image p. 163;
2000, Himeji, Himeji City Museum of Art, From Ensor to Delvaux, no. 7, image p. 63;
2000, Sakura, Sakura City Museum of Art, From Ensor to Delvaux, no. 7, image p. 63;
2001, Tokyo, Isetan Museum of Art, From Ensor to Delvaux, no. 7, image p. 63;
2001, Osaka, Umeda, Daimaru Museum, From Ensor to Delvaux, no. 7, image p. 63;
2001, Okazaki, Okazaki City Museum, From Ensor to Delvaux, no. 7, image p. 63;
2004/ 2005, Salamanca, Caja Duero, James Ensor. De noche cartografiaba mis sueños. Obras en las colecciones del Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten de Amberes (KMSKA) y del Museum voor Schone Kunsten de Ostende (MSKO), no. 101, image p. 133;
2005, Seville, Caja San Fernando, James Ensor. De noche cartografiaba mis sueños. Obras en las colecciones del Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten de Amberes (KMSKA) y del Museum voor Schone Kunsten de Ostende (MSKO), no. 101, image p. 133;
2005, Tokyo, Tokyo Metropolitan Teien Art Museum, James Ensor: Japonisme to Modernism, no. 62, image p. 97;
2005, Tsu City, Mie Prefectural Art Museum, James Ensor: Japonisme to Modernism, no. 62, image p. 97;
2005, Fukushima, Fukushima Prefectural Museum of Art, James Ensor: Japonisme to Modernism, no. 62, image p. 97;
2005, Kitakyushu, Kitakyushu Municipal Museum of Art, James Ensor: Japonisme to Modernism, no. 62, image p. 97;
2005, Takamatsu, Takamatsu City Museum of Art, James Ensor: Japonisme to Modernism, no. 62, image p. 97;
2007, Brussels, Palais des Beaux-Arts, The forbidden empire: world view of Chinese and Flemish masters, image p. 179;
2007, Beijing, Palace Museum, The forbidden empire: world view of Chinese and Flemish masters, image p. 179;
2008, Wuppertal, Von der Heydt Museum, James Ensor. Schrecken ohne Ende, image p. 170;
2009, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, Goya, Redon, Ensor. Grotesque paintings and drawings, image p. 174;
2010, Mexico, Xochimilco, Museo Dolores Olmedo Patinõ, James Ensor, image p. 58, pp. 112-113 and p. 40 (detail);
2010/ 2011, Brussels, ING Culture center, Ensor unmasked, no. 219, image p. 195;
2011, The Hague, Gemeentemuseum, James Ensor. Universum van een fantast, image p. 124;
2012, Aichi, Toyota Municipal Museum of Art, James Ensor in Context. Ensor and the History of European Art from the Collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, no. 110, image p. 133;
2012, Ehime, The Museum of Art, James Ensor in Context. Ensor and the History of European Art from the Collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, no. 110, image p. 133;
2012, Tokyo, Seiji Togo Memorial Sompo Japan Museum of Art, James Ensor in Context. Ensor and the History of European Art from the Collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, no. 110, image p. 133;
2012/ 2013, Iwate, Iwate Museum of Art, James Ensor in Context. Ensor and the History of European Art from the Collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, no. 110, image p. 133;
2013, Okayama, The Okayama Prefectural Museum of Art, James Ensor in Context. Ensor and the History of European Art from the Collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, no. 110, image p. 133;
2013/ 2014, Ordrupgaard, James Ensor Fra Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen og schweiziske samlinger, no. 121, image;
2014, Basel, Kunstmuseum,The surprised masks: James Ensor from the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp and Swiss collections, no. 121, image;
2014, Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum, The Getty Center, The Scandalous Art of James Ensor (no catalogue);
2014/ 2015, Chicago, The Art Institute of Chicago, Temptation: The Demons of James Ensor (no catalogue);
2016/ 2017, London, Royal Academy of Arts, Intrigue: James Ensor by Luc Tuymans, no. 46, image p. 102-103;
2018/ 2020, Oostend, Mu.ZEE, Dreams of mother-of-pearl. The ENSOR collection of the KMSKA in Ostend, image p. 7;
2021, Mannheim, Kunsthalle, James Ensor, no. 45, image p. 107;
2021/ 2022, Munich, Kunsthalle München, Fantastically real. Belgian modern art from Ensor to Magritte, no. 52, image p. 114;