Mother of the Church and Mary in Christian Art Nichols Key Points

Small oil panel past Jan van Eyck

Madonna in the Church (or The Virgin in the Church ) is a small oil console past the early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. Probably executed betwixt c. 1438–1440, information technology depicts the Virgin Mary holding the Child Jesus in a Gothic cathedral. Mary is presented equally Queen of Heaven wearing a jewel-studded crown, cradling a playful child Christ who gazes at her and grips the neckline of her red dress in a manner that recalls the 13th-century Byzantine tradition of the Eleusa icon (Virgin of Tenderness). Tracery in the arch at the rear of the nave contains wooden carvings depicting episodes from Mary'southward life, while a faux bois sculpture in a niche shows her holding the kid in a like pose. Erwin Panofsky sees the painting composed as if the primary figures in the panel are intended to be the sculptures come up to life.^[1] In a doorway to the right, ii angels sing psalms from a hymn volume. Similar other Byzantine depictions of the Madonna, van Eyck depicts a monumental Mary, unrealistically large compared to her surroundings. The panel contains closely observed beams of lite flooding through the cathedral'south windows. It illuminates the interior before culminating in ii pools on the flooring. The low-cal has symbolic significance, alluding simultaneously to Mary's virginal purity and God's ethereal presence.^[2]

Most fine art historians meet the panel as the left wing of a dismantled diptych; presumably its opposite wing was a votive portrait. Near-gimmicky copies by the Primary of 1499 and January Gossaert pair it with two very dissimilar right-hand images: i is of a donor kneeling in an interior setting; the other is set outdoors, with the donor being presented past St Anthony. Both painters fabricated significant alterations to van Eyck's composition, which may accept brought the image more up to date with contemporary styles, but the copies have been described equally "spiritually if not aesthetically disastrous to the original concept".^[3]

Madonna in the Church was first documented in 1851. Since then its dating and attribution accept been widely debated amongst scholars. At offset thought an early piece of work by Jan van Eyck, and for a catamenia attributed to his brother Hubert van Eyck, it is now definitively attributed to Jan and believed to exist a afterward piece of work, demonstrating techniques present in piece of work from the mid-1430s and subsequently. The panel was acquired for the Berlin Gemäldegalerie in 1874. It was stolen in 1877 and presently returned, only without its original inscribed frame, which was never recovered.^[4] Today Madonna in the Church is widely considered ane of van Eyck's finest; Millard Meiss wrote that its "splendor and subtlety of [its delineation] of calorie-free is unsurpassed in Western art."^[5]

Attribution and dating [edit]

Mass of the Expressionless. From the Turin-Milan Hours, attributed to the bearding Hand 1000, idea to be van Eyck. This piece of work shows a very similar gothic interior to the Berlin console.

The attribution of the console reflects the progression and trends of 19th and 20th-century scholarship on Early Netherlandish art. It is now thought to have been completed c. 1438–40, merely at that place are still arguments for dates as early as 1424–29. As with the pages ascribed to Hand M in the Turin-Milan Hours manuscript, the panel was attributed to January'south brother Hubert van Eyck in the 1875 Gemäldegalerie catalogue, and past a 1911 claim by fine art historian Georges Hulin de Loo.^[six] This is no longer considered credible and Hubert, today, is credited with very few works.^{[7] [8]} By 1912 the painting had been definitively attributed to Jan in the museum catalogue.^[6]

Attempts to date it have undergone similar shifts of opinion. In the 19th century the console was believed to be an early on piece of work by Jan completed as early every bit c. 1410, although this view changed as scholarship progressed. In the early on 20th century, Ludwig von Baldass placed information technology around 1424–29, then for a long period it was seen as originating from the early 1430s.^[6] Erwin Panofsky provided the outset detailed treatise on the work and placed it around 1432–34. However, following research from Meyer Schapiro, he revised his stance to the belatedly 1430s in the 1953 edition of his Early Netherlandish Painting.^[8] A 1970s comparative study of van Eyck'southward 1437 Saint Barbara concluded that Madonna in the Church was completed after c. 1437.^[half-dozen] In the 1990s, Otto Pächt judged the work every bit probably a late van Eyck, given the similar handling of an interior in the 1434 Arnolfini Portrait.^[9] In the early 21st century, Jeffrey Chipps Smith and John Oliver Hand placed information technology between 1426 and 1428, claiming information technology every bit perchance the earliest extant signed work confirmed every bit by January.^[ten]

The panel [edit]

Clarification [edit]

At 31 cm × 14 cm, the painting's dimensions are minor enough to be about considered miniature, consistent with well-nigh 15th-century devotional diptychs. A reduced size increased portability and affordability, and encouraged the viewer to arroyo the piece to more closely run into its intricate details.^[11] The work shows Mary wearing a nighttime blueish robe – the color traditionally used to emphasise her humanity – over a red wearing apparel of dissimilar textured fabrics. Her hem is embroidered in golden with gilded lettering that reads "SOL" and "LU",^[12] or perhaps SIOR SOLE HEC ES, ^[13] in all probability, fragments of the Latin words for "sun" (sole) and "light" (lux).^[12] On her head is an elaborately tiered and jeweled crown and in her artillery she carries the infant Jesus, his feet resting on her left manus. Swaddled in a white fabric from hips trailing downward across his feet, his hand clutches the jeweled neckline of his mother'southward dress.^[14]

The Madonna and babe Christ (detail). A statue of the Madonna and Child tin can exist seen just behind; to the right two angels sing psalms.

Further depictions of Mary are plant in the church groundwork. They include a statue of the Virgin and Child positioned between two lit candles in the choir screen behind the main figures, and to the right 2 angels stand in the choir singing her praises (perhaps singing the hymn inscribed on the frame). Above her is an annunciation relief, and in the recessed bay a relief depicting her coronation; the crucifixion is shown on the rood. Thus, the stages of Mary's life as mother of Jesus are depicted in the painting.^[xv] A two-cavalcade prayer tablet – similar to the one depicted in Rogier van der Weyden's big Seven Sacraments Altarpiece (1445–50) – hangs on a pier to the left. It contains words alluding to and echoing the lines on the original frame.^[i] The windows of the clerestory overlook flying buttresses, and cobwebs are visible betwixt the arches of the vault.^[16] Several different building phases can be seen in the arched gallery, while the choral balcony and transept are depicted in a more contemporary manner than the nave.^[xvi]

Closely detailed beams of light spill through the high windows and illuminate the interior, filling the portal and flowing across the tiled floors earlier it hits the clerestory windows. The brilliance of the daylight is juxtaposed with the gentle glow of the candles in the choir screen chantry, while the lower portion of the pictorial infinite is relatively poorly lit.^[15] Shadows cast past the cathedral can be seen across the choir steps and near aisle.^[12] Their bending is rendered in an unusually realistic manner for early 15th century, and the detail is such that their description is likely based on observation of the actual behaviour of calorie-free, a farther innovation in 15th-century fine art. Notwithstanding while the light is portrayed as it might appear in nature, its source is non. Panofsky notes that the sunlight enters from the north windows, only contemporary churches normally had east-facing choirs, so the light should enter from the s. He suggests the light is not intended to be natural, but rather to represent the divine, and hence subject to "the laws of symbolism and non those of nature."^[17]

Frame and inscriptions [edit]

According to Elisabeth Dhanens, the shape and rounded top of the original frame is reminiscent of those found on the top annals of panels of the Ghent Altarpiece, which are accepted as designed by Jan's brother Hubert.^[six] She believes the current frame is too narrow and small, and contains "clumsy marbling".^[xviii] From a detailed 1851 inventory, we know the text of the hymn inscribed on original frame. The text is written in a poetic form and begun on the lower border and then extended upward on the vertical borders, catastrophe on the top border.^{[fifteen] [19]} The lower border of the frame read FLOS FLORIOLORUM APPELLARIS ;^[5] the sides and tiptop MATER HEC EST FILIA PATER EST NATUS QUIS AUDIVIT TALIA DEUS HOMO NATUS ETCET ("The female parent is the daughter. This father is built-in. Who has heard of such a affair? God born a human being"). The fifth stanza of the hymn (not included in van Eyck's transcription) reads, "Equally the sunbeam through the glass. Passeth but not staineth. Thus, the Virgin, equally she was. Virgin withal remaineth."^[xv] The lettering on the hem of her robe echoes the inscription on the frame, words similar to those found on Mary'due south clothes in van Eyck's 1436 Virgin and Kid with Catechism van der Paele,^[16] a passage from the Book of Wisdom (7:29) reading EST ENIM HAEC SPECIOSIOR SOLE ET SUPER OMNEM STELLARUM DISPOSITIONEM. LUCI CONPARATA INVENITUR PRIOR ("For she is more than beautiful than the sunday, and excels every constellation of the stars. Compared with the light she is found to be superior").^[12]

Some historians accept suggested that the inscriptions were intended to exhale life into the other statues and depictions of Mary.^[fifteen] Others, including Craig Harbison, believe they were purely functional; given that contemporary diptychs were deputed for private devotion and reflection, the inscriptions were meant to be read as an incantation or were personalised indulgence prayers. Harbison notes that van Eyck's privately commissioned works are unusually heavily inscribed with prayer, and that the words may have served a similar function to prayer tablets, or more exactly "Prayer Wings", of the type seen in the reconstructed London Virgin and Kid triptych.^[20]

Architecture [edit]

The far-off stained-glass window at the top left of the panel

Van Eyck'southward before work often shows churches and cathedrals in older Romanesque mode, sometimes to represent the Temple in Jerusalem as an advisable historical setting, with decoration drawn exclusively from the Sometime Testament.^[21] That is clearly not the case hither – the Christ Child occupies the same space equally a large rood cross depicting him being crucified. The church in this panel is gimmicky Gothic – a option perhaps intended to associate Mary with the Ecclesia Triumphans – while her pose and oversized scale are indebted to the forms and conventions of Byzantine fine art and the International Gothic.^[22] Van Eyck details the architecture with a precision not seen before in northern European painting.^[xv]

The crucifixion in the upper right portion of the panel

The different elements of the cathedral are so specifically detailed and the elements of Gothic and contemporary architecture and so well delineated, that art and architecture historians have concluded that van Eyck must have had enough architectural knowledge to brand nuanced distinctions. More so, given the finesse of the descriptions, many scholars take tried to link the painting with a particular building.^[23] Yet, and every bit with all buildings in van Eyck's work, the structure is imagined and probably an idealised formation of what he viewed as a perfect architectural space. This is evident from a number of features that would be unlikely in a contemporary church, such equally the placing of a round arched triforium in a higher place a pointed colonnade.^[24]

Several art historians have reasoned why van Eyck did not model the interior on any bodily edifice. Well-nigh concur that he sought to create an platonic and perfect space for Mary's apparition,^[25] and aimed for visual impact rather than physical possibility. Buildings suggested as possible (at to the lowest degree partial) sources include Saint Nicholas' Church building, Ghent, the Basilica of St Denis, Dijon Cathedral, Liège Cathedral and Cologne Cathedral,^[26] also as the basilica of Our Lady in Tongeren, which contains a very similar triforium gallery and clerestory.^[25] Tongeren is ane of a minority of churches in the region aligned on a northward-east to due south-west axis, so that the lighting atmospheric condition in the painting tin be seen on summertime mornings.^[27] In addition, the church contains a standing statue of the Virgin and Child (the Virgin with a tall crown), once credited with miraculous powers, though the current statue mail service-dates van Eyck.^[28]

Pächt described the work in terms of an "interior illusion", noting the manner in which the viewer's center falls across the nave, the crossing, only "simply so, [is he] looking through and over the rood screen, the choir." From this Pächt views the perspective every bit deliberately defective cohesion, as "the human relationship betwixt the parts of the building is not shown in full ... The transition from foreground to background is ingeniously masked by the figure of the Madonna herself, who obscures the crossing pier; the heart footing is practically eliminated and our eye crosses over it without our becoming enlightened of it." The illusion is enhanced by the apply of colour to suggest light: the interior is dim and in shadow while the unseen exterior seems bathed in bright light.^[29]

Windows and stained glass [edit]

Unusual for a 13th-century Gothic cathedral, almost of the windows are of clear glass.^[15] Looking at the windows running along the nave, John Fifty. Ward observed that the window directly above the suspended crucifix is the but 1 whose uppermost portion is visible. That window straight faces the viewer, revealing intricately designed stained glass panels that show intertwined red and blue flowers. Because the window is then far back in the pictorial infinite, where perspective is condign faint, the proximity of the flowers to the crucifix lends them the appearance of coming "forward in space, every bit if [they] had suddenly grown from the summit of the crucifix in front end of information technology."^[30]

Ward does not believe this a trick of the eye resulting from loss of perspective towards the high reaches of the console. Instead he sees it as a subtle reference to the iconography and mythology of the Book of Genesis' Tree of life, which he describes here as "reborn in Christ'due south decease". He does admit the subtlety of the illusion, and the fact that neither of the two well known near copies include the motif. The idea of flowers shown every bit if sprouting from the acme of the cantankerous may take been borrowed from Masaccio'south c. 1426 Crucifixion, where flowers are placed on the upper portion of the vertical beam of the cross. Ward concludes than van Eyck took the idea even further past showing the flowers emanating from another source, and sought to depict the actual moment where the tree of life is reborn and "the cross comes to life and sprouts flowers as one watches".^[30]

Interpretation and iconography [edit]

Light [edit]

In the early on 15th century, Mary held a primal position in Christian iconography and was often portrayed as the one in whom the "Word was made flesh", a direct effect of the work of the divine light.^[31] During the medieval period, low-cal acted every bit a visual symbol for both the immaculate formulation and Christ's nascence; it was believed that he was made manifest by God's light passing through Mary'southward body, just equally light shines through a window pane.^[32]

Proclamation, Jan van Eyck, c 1434. National Gallery of Fine art, Washington DC. This is perhaps the best known of van Eyck's Madonna paintings where the figures seem overlarge compared with the compages. Nevertheless, in this work there are no architectural fittings to give a clear scale to the building.

The divine represented by calorie-free is a motif in keeping with the sentiment of both the Latin text on the hem of Mary'due south dress (which compares her beauty and radiance to that of divine lite)^[17] and on the frame. A separate source of low-cal, which also behaves equally if from a divine rather than natural source, illuminates her face. The ii pools of light behind her have been described equally lending the painting a mystical atmosphere, indicating the presence of God.^[12] In the niche backside her, the statues are lit past ii candles - symbols of the incarnation, whereas she is bathed in natural light.^[15] The artificial light adds to the overall illusion of the interior of the church, which Pächt views as achieved mainly through color.^[33]

Low-cal became a popular means for 15th-century Northern painters to represent the mystery of the Incarnation, utilising the thought of light passing through glass without shattering it to convey the paradox of conception and "virgo intacta". This is reflected in a passage attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux from his "Sermones de Diversis"; "Simply as the brilliance of the lord's day fills and penetrates a glass window without dissentious it, and pierces its solid form with imperceptible subtlety, neither pain it when entering nor destroying information technology when emerging: thus the word of God, the splendor of the Father, entered the virgin chamber and then came forth from the closed womb."^[34]

Before the early Netherlandish period, divine light was non well described: if a painter wanted to describe heavenly radiance, he typically painted an object in cogitating gold. There was a focus on describing the object itself rather than the event of the light every bit it roughshod across it. Van Eyck was one of the get-go to portray low-cal's saturation, illuminating furnishings and gradations every bit it poured across the pictorial space. He detailed how an object'southward colour could vary depending on the amount and blazon of light illuminating it. This play of low-cal is axiomatic across the panel, and particularly seen on Mary'south gilded dress and jewelled crown, beyond her hair and on her pall.^[33]

Eleusa icon [edit]

The panel is, with the Antwerp Madonna at the Fountain, broadly accepted as i of van Eyck'due south two belatedly "Madonna and Child" paintings before his death in almost 1441. Both show a standing Virgin dressed in blue. In both works, Mary's positioning and colourisation contrasts with his earlier surviving treatments of the discipline, in which she was typically seated and dressed in red. Models for standing Virgins existed in the icons of Byzantine fine art, and both paintings also represent modified versions of the eleusa type, sometimes chosen the Virgin of Tenderness in English, where the Virgin and Kid affect cheeks, and the child caresses Mary'due south face up.^[35]

During the 14th and 15th centuries, a big number of these works were imported into northern Europe, and were widely copied by the first generation of Netherlandish artists, among others.^[36] The iconography of both the late Byzantine – typified past the unknown artist responsible for the Cambrai Madonna – and 14th-century successors such as Giotto favoured presenting the Madonna on a monumental scale. Undoubtedly van Eyck absorbed these influences, though when and through which works is disputed. It is believed that he had get-go-hand exposure to them during his visit to Italy, which occurred either in 1426 or 1428, before the Cambrai icon was brought to the North.^[37] Van Eyck's two Madonna panels carried frontward the habit of reproduction and were themselves frequently copied by commercial workshops throughout the 15th century.^{[38] [39]}

It is possible that the Byzantine season to these images was also continued with gimmicky attempts through diplomacy to accomplish reconciliation with the Greek Orthodox Church, in which van Eyck's patron Philip the Skilful took a keen interest. Van Eyck's Portrait of Cardinal Niccolò Albergati (c. 1431) depicts one of the papal diplomats most involved with these efforts.^[40]

Mary every bit the Church [edit]

Van Eyck gives Mary three roles: Mother of Christ, the personification of the "Ecclesia Triumphans" and Queen of Heaven, the latter apparent from her jewel-studded crown.^[11] The painting's near miniature size contrasts with Mary'southward unrealistically large stature compared with her setting. She physically dominates the cathedral; her caput is nigh level with the approximately sixty feet loftier gallery.^[eleven] This distortion of scale is institute in a number of other van Eyck'due south Madonna paintings, where the arches of the mostly gothic interior practice non allow headroom for the virgin. Pächt describes the interior every bit a "throne room", which envelops her as if a "conveying case".^[41] Her monumental stature reflects a tradition reaching dorsum to an Italo-Byzantine blazon – maybe best known through Giotto's Ognissanti Madonna (c. 1310) – and emphasises her identification with the cathedral itself. Till-Holger Borchert says that van Eyck did non pigment her as "the Madonna in a church", but instead every bit metaphor, presenting Mary "equally the Church".^[16] This idea that her size represents her embodiment as the church was first suggested by Erwin Panofsky in 1941. Art historians in the 19th century, who thought the work was executed early in van Eyck'due south career, attributed her scale as the error of a relatively immature painter.^[42]

The composition is today seen as deliberate, and reverse to both his Madonna of Chancellor Rolin and Arnolfini Portrait. These works show interiors seemingly besides small to contain the figures, a device van Eyck used to create and emphasise an intimate space shared by donor and saint.^[43] The Virgin's summit recalls his Annunciation of 1434–36, although in that composition there are no architectural fittings to give a clear calibration to the building. Perhaps reflecting the view of a "relatively immature painter", a copy of the Annunciation past Joos van Cleve shows Mary at a more realistic proportion scale to her surroundings.^[11]

Mary is presented as a Marian apparition; in this case she probably appears earlier a donor, who would accept been kneeling in prayer in the now lost opposite console.^[1] The thought of a saint appearing earlier laity was common in Northern fine art of the menses,^[44] and is likewise represented in van Eyck'south Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele (1434–36). There, the Canon is portrayed equally if having just momentarily paused to reflect on a passage from his hand-held bible equally the Virgin and Child with two saints appear before him, as if embodiments of his prayer.^[45]

Pilgrimage [edit]

As a prayer tablet placed on a pier was a distinctive trait of pilgrimage churches, Harbison sees the panel every bit partly concerned with the phenomenon of pilgrimage. This type of tablet contained specific prayers whose recitation in front of a item paradigm or in the church was believed to attract an indulgence, or remission of time in Purgatory. The statue of the Virgin and Child in the niche behind Mary's left shoulder might correspond such an image, whereas the inscription of a Nativity hymn effectually the lost frame, ending in ETCET , i.e. "etcetera", would take told the viewer to recite the whole hymn, mayhap for an indulgence. The purpose of the picture, therefore, may have been to represent and bring the act of pilgrimage to a domestic setting. This would have been attractive to Philip the Skillful who, though he made many pilgrimages in person, is recorded every bit paying van Eyck to perform i on his behalf in 1426, apparently an acceptable practice in Late Medieval celestial accounting.^[46]

The Virgin and Kid at the forefront might represent the background statues coming to life; at the time such an apparition was considered the highest grade of pilgrimage experience. Their poses are similar and her tall crown is typical of those seen on statues rather than either royalty or painted figures of the Virgin. Harbison farther suggests that the two pools of lite on the floor echo the two candles on either side of one of the statues, and notes that the copies described beneath retain the prayer tablet, 1 bringing it nearer to the foreground.^[46]

Lost diptych and copies [edit]

Most art historians believe that there are a number of indicators that the console was the left-hand wing of a dismantled diptych. The frame contains clasps, implying information technology was once hinged to a 2d panel.^[47] The work seems equanimous to be symmetrically balanced towards an accompanying right-manus wing: Mary is positioned slightly to the correct of middle, while her downward, almost coy glance is directed at a space beyond the edge of the panel, suggesting that she is looking at, or in the direction of, a kneeling donor in a correct-hand fly. The visible architectural features – with the exception of the niches, the crucifixion and the windows straight behind it, which are at a correct bending to the nave and centre front, facing the viewer – are at the left of the panel, facing right.^[48]

Harbison believes the panel is "about certainly only the left-hand one-half of a devotional diptych".^[49] Dhanens observes how Mary'south eyeline extends beyond the horizon of her panel, a mutual feature of Netherlandish diptychs and triptychs, where the saint's gaze is directed towards an accompanying prototype of a donor.^[eighteen] Other indicators include the unusually oblique architectural aspect of the church, which suggests that its depiction was intended to extend beyond to a sis wing – in a manner like to the Master of Flemalle's Annunciation,^[eighteen] and particularly in van der Weyden's c. 1452 Braque Triptych, where continuity between the panels is peculiarly emphasised.^[50]

St Anthony with a Donor, c. 1513. Galleria Doria Pamphilj, Rome

Two near-gimmicky copies, usually attributed to the Ghent Master of 1499 and Jan Gossaert,^[52] were completed while the original was in the drove of Margaret of Austria, great-granddaughter of Philip the Good. Both present variants of the Madonna panel as the left wing of a devotional diptych, with a donor portrait equally the right wing.^[53] However, the two donor panels accept very unlike settings. The 1499 version shows the Cistercian abbot Christiaan de Hondt praying in his luxurious quarters,^[48] while Gossaert presents the donor Antonio Siciliano, accompanied by Saint Anthony, in a panoramic landscape setting. It is not known if either work is based on an original left-hand panel painted by van Eyck.^[54]

The 1499 Madonna panel is a free adaption, in that the artist has changed and repositioned a number of elements. Yet, art historians commonly hold that they are to the detriment of the balance and bear upon of the composition.^[iii] The panel attributed to Gossaert shows even more significant, though maybe more successful, alterations, including shifting the centre of residue by adding a department to the right-manus side, dressing the Virgin entirely in dark blueish and changing her facial features.^[55] Both copies omit the ii pools of brilliant low-cal on the flooring across from her, thus removing the mystical element of van Eyck's original,^[56] maybe because its significance was not grasped past the afterward artists.^[57] That Gossaert followed other aspects of the original so closely, all the same, is prove of the loftier regard he held for van Eyck'south technical and artful ability, and his version has been seen by some as a homage.^[58] The Principal of 1499's admiration for van Eyck can be seen in his left-hand panel, which contains many features reminiscent of van Eyck'southward Arnolfini Portrait, including the rendering of the ceiling beams and the color and texture of the ruddy fabrics.^[48]

Around 1520–1530, the Ghent illuminator and miniaturist Simon Bening produced a one-half-length Virgin and Child that closely resembles van Eyck's panel, to the extent that information technology can exist considered a loose copy. However, information technology can be more than closely related to the original Cambrai Madonna especially in its retention of the halo, which was considered former fashioned by the 15th century. Bening's Madonna is distinct to the two before copies of van Eyck; information technology was intended equally a stand-alone panel, not function of a diptych, and though compositionally like, radically departs from the original, especially in its colourisation. It is thought that Bening's piece of work was informed by Gossaert's panel rather than directly by van Eyck's.^{[51] [59]}

Provenance [edit]

The provenance of the work contains many gaps, and even the better-documented periods are often complicated or "murky", according to Dhanens. There is almost no record from the early 16th century through 1851, and the theft in 1877 leaves doubt for some as to what exactly was returned. Historian Léon de Laborde documented an altarpiece in a village near Nantes in 1851 – a Madonna in a church nave holding the Christ Child in her right arm – which he described as "painted on wood, very well preserved, however in its original frame".^[19] The clarification contains a detailing of the frame's inscription.^[threescore] A document from 1855 records a Virgin in the Church thought to be by Hubert and Jan van Eyck, which may exist the same painting. It belonged to a Monsieur Nau, who had bought it for fifty francs from the housekeeper of Francois Cacault, a French diplomat who had acquired a number of paintings from Italy.^[nineteen]

A panel very like in description was purchased by the Aachen art collector Barthold Suermondt onetime during the 1860s and catalogued in 1869 with a detailing of the frame's inscription. This work was idea to have come from Nantes,^[60] suggesting information technology was the same equally the panel mentioned in 1851. The Suermondt collection was acquired past the Berlin museum in May 1874, as part of an acquisition of 219 paintings.^[61] The painting was stolen in March 1877, generating worldwide news coverage; it was recovered x days later, but without the original frame.^[62] The 1875 Berlin museum catalogue attributes a van Eyck imitator; the 1883 catalogue describes the original equally lost and the Berlin painting a re-create. Soon after, however, its authenticity was verified, and the 1904 Berlin catalogue attributed January.^[6]

Philip the Good may take been the original patron, given that a painting matching its description was recorded in a 1567 inventory of his great-granddaughter Margaret of Austria, who inherited the majority of Philip's collection. The description in her record reads, "United nations autre tableau de Nostre-Dame, du duc Philippe, qui est venu de Maillardet, couvert de satin brouché gris, et ayant fermaulx d'argent doré et bordé de velours vert. Fait de la main Johannes."^[63] From the naming conventions known from the collection's inventory, "Johannes" probably refers to van Eyck, "duc Philippe" to Philip.^[47]

References [edit]

Notes [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b c} Harbison (1995), 99
2. ^ Smith (2004), 64
3. ^ ^{a b} Koch (1967), 48. See also Panofsky (1953), 487
4. ^ Harbison (1995), 177
5. ^ ^{a b} Meiss (1945), 179
6. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Dhanens (1980), 323
7. ^ Till-Holger Borchert mentions that although Hubert enjoyed a brief re-flourish in the early 20th century, during the latter one-half of the 19th century some scholars were claiming he was the invention of the 16th century, by "fiercely patriotic Ghent humanists", and a "fictitious character who had never actually lived, let lonely been an important painter." See Borchert (2008), 12
8. ^ ^{a b} Panofsky & Wuttke (2006), 552
9. ^ Pächt (1999), 205
10. ^ Smith (2004), 61
11. ^ ^{a b c d} Harbison (1995), 169–187
12. ^ ^{a b c d e} Smith (2004), 63
13. ^ Meiss (1945), 180
14. ^ Weale (1908), 167
15. ^ ^{a b c d e f 1000 h} Meiss (1945), 179–181
16. ^ ^{a b c d} Borchert (2008), 63
17. ^ ^{a b} Panofsky (1953), 147–148
18. ^ ^{a b c} Dhanens (1980), 325
19. ^ ^{a b c} Dhanens (1980), 316
20. ^ Harbison (1995), 95–96. Both wings are later on additions.
21. ^ Snyder (1985), 99
22. ^ Walther, Ingo F. Masterpieces of Western Fine art (From Gothic to Neoclassicism: Part 1). Taschen GmbH, 2002. 124. ISBN three-8228-1825-nine
23. ^ Snyder (1985), 100; Harbison (1991), 169–175
24. ^ Wood, Christopher. Forgery, Replica, Fiction: Temporalities of German Renaissance Art. University of Chicago Printing, 2008. 195–96. ISBN 0-226-90597-7
25. ^ ^{a b} Harbison (1995), 101
26. ^ Dhanens (1980), 328
27. ^ Harbison (1991), 172–176
28. ^ Harbison (1991), 178–179
29. ^ Pächt (1999), 204
30. ^ ^{a b} Ward (1994), 17
31. ^ Walters Art Museum (1962), xv
32. ^ Meiss (1945), 177
33. ^ ^{a b} Pächt (1999), 14
34. ^ Meiss (1945), 176
35. ^ Harbison (1991), 158–162
36. ^ See Evans (2004), 545–593
37. ^ Harbison (1995), 156
38. ^ Jolly (1998), 396
39. ^ Harbison (1991), 159–163
40. ^ Harbison (1991), 163–167
41. ^ Pächt (1999), 203–205
42. ^ Panofsky (1953), 145
43. ^ Harbison (1991), 100
44. ^ Harbison (1995), 96
45. ^ Rothstein (2005), 50
46. ^ ^{a b} Harbison (1991), 177–178
47. ^ ^{a b} Kittell & Suydam (2004), 212
48. ^ ^{a b c} Smith (2004), 65
49. ^ Harbison (1995), 98
50. ^ Acres, Alfred. "Rogier van der Weyden'south Painted Texts". Artibus et Historiae, Volume 21, No. 41, 2000. 89
51. ^ ^{a b} Ainsworth et al (2010), 144
52. ^ The attribution of the latter diptych is sometimes questioned in favour of van Eyck'southward pupil Gerard David, based on stylistic similarities and the fact that Gossaert is not usually associated with outdoor or landscape panels. Or, if Gossaert'southward paw is accustomed, it may be that it was not intended as a diptych wing and the right fly was designed by a member of Gerard'due south workshop. The Madonna panel contains far fewer indicators of existence a pendant, that is an accompanying but unattached panel, than van Eyck's original, most specially the fact that her eyes are downcast. Come across Ainsworth et al (2010), 144
53. ^ Borchert (2008), 64
54. ^ Jones (2011), 37–39
55. ^ Hand et al (2006), 100
56. ^ Jones (2011), 36
57. ^ Harbison (1991), 176
58. ^ Jones (2011), 37
59. ^ Ainsworth, Marion; Evans, Helen C. (ed.). Byzantium, Faith and Ability (1261–1557). Metropolitan Museum of Fine art, Yale University Printing, 2004. 582–588. ISBN i-58839-114-0
60. ^ ^{a b} Meiss (1945), 175
61. ^ Dhanens (1980), 361
62. ^ The person returning the painting claimed to have bought it for about 17 Groschen. Run into Dhanens (1980), 323
63. ^ "Correspondance de fifty'empereur Maximilien Ier et de Marguerite d'Autriche ... de 1507 à 1519" (in French). Société de l'histoire de France, Volumes xvi–17. Paris: J. Renouard et cie, 1839

Sources [edit]

• Ainsworth, Maryan Wynn; Alsteens, Stijn; Orenstein, Nadine. Human, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart's Renaissance: The Complete Works. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Fine art, 2010. ISBN one-58839-398-4
• Borchert, Till-Holger. Van Eyck. London: Taschen, 2008. ISBN three-8228-5687-eight
• Dhanens, Elisabeth. Hubert and Jan van Eyck. New York: Tabard Press. 1980, ISBN 0-914427-00-8
• Evans, Helen C. (ed.), Byzantium, Faith and Ability (1261–1557), 2004, Metropolitan Museum of Fine art/Yale University Press. ISBN 1-58839-114-0
• Hand, John Oliver; Metzger, Catherine; Spron, Ron. Prayers and Portraits: Unfolding the Netherlandish Diptych. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006. ISBN 0-300-12155-5
• Harbison, Craig. "Realism and Symbolism in Early Flemish Painting". The Art Message, Volume 66, No. 4, December 1984. 588–602
• Harbison, Craig. The Art of the Northern Renaissance. London: Laurence Rex Publishing, 1995. ISBN 1-78067-027-3
• Harbison, Craig. January van Eyck, The Play of Realism. London: Reaktion Books, 1991. ISBN 0-948462-18-3
• Jolly, Penny. "Jan van Eyck's Italian Pilgrimage: A Miraculous Florentine Announcement and the Ghent Altarpiece". Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte. 61. Bd., H. 3, 1998. JSTOR 1482990
• Jones, Susan Frances. Van Eyck to Gossaert. London: National Gallery, 2011. ISBN 1-85709-504-9
• Kittell, Ellen; Suydam, Mary. The Texture of Society: Medieval Women in the Southern Low Countries: Women in Medieval Flemish region. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. ISBN 0-312-29332-1
• Koch, Robert A. "Copies of Rogier van der Weyden's Madonna in Ruddy". Record of the Fine art Museum, Princeton University, Book 26, No. 2, 1967. 46–58
• Lane, Barbara. The Altar and the Altarpiece, Sacramental Themes in Early Netherlandish Painting. New York: Harper & Row, 1984. ISBN 0-06-430133-8
• Lyman, Thomas. "Architectural Portraiture and Jan van Eyck'southward Washington Annunciation". Gesta, Volume 20, No. ane, in "Essays in Honor of Harry Bober", 1981.
• Meiss, Millard. "Lite equally Class and Symbol in Some Fifteenth-Century Paintings". The Art Bulletin, Volume 27, No. 3, 1945. JSTOR 3047010
• Nash, Susie. Northern Renaissance fine art. Oxford: Oxford History of Fine art, 2008. ISBN 0-19-284269-2
• Pächt, Otto. Van Eyck and the Founders of Early Netherlandish Painting. 1999. London: Harvey Miller Publishers. ISBN 1-872501-28-1
• Panofsky, Erwin. Early Netherlandish painting: Its Origins and Character. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Printing, 1953.
• Panofsky, Erwin; Wuttke, Dieter (ed). Korrespondenz 1950 – 1956 Band Three. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006. ISBN 3-447-05373-9
• Rothstein, Bret. Sight and Spirituality in Early Netherlandish Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-521-83278-0
• Smith, Jeffrey Chipps. The Northern Renaissance. London: Phaidon Press, 2004. ISBN 0-7148-3867-5
• Snyder, James. The Northern Renaissance: Painting, Sculpture, the Graphic Arts from 1350 to 1575. New York: Harry North. Abrams, Inc., 1985. ISBN 0-8109-1081-0
• Tanner, Jeremy. Sociology of Fine art: A Reader. London: Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0-415-30884-4
• Walters Art Museum. "The International Style: The Arts in Europe around 1400". Exhibition: October 23 – December 2, 1962. Baltimore, Dr..
• Ward, John. "Disguised Symbolism as Enactive Symbolism in Van Eyck's Paintings". Artibus et Historiae, Book 15, No. 29, 1994.
• Weale, W.H. James. The Van Eycks and their art. London: John Lane, 1908
• Wolff, Martha; Hand, John Oliver. Early Netherlandish painting. National Gallery of Art Washington. Oxford University Printing, 1987. ISBN 0-521-34016-0

External links [edit]

• Van Eyck's The Madonna in the Church at Smarthistory

grubbyoustion.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_in_the_Church

Share this post