References W. v. Seidlitz in Allgemeines Künstler-lexikon . 3, Leipzig, 1885, p. 313, as by Beham, in a Berlin private collection; remarks that von Eck appears younger here than he does in Beham's print; notes that the painting is abraded.Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 18 (1895), p. 274, questions the attribution to Beham, without having seen the painting [see Ref. Friedländer 1912].Gemälde alter Meister der Sammlung Weber, Hamburg . 2nd ed. Leipzig, [1898], pl. 61, as "Portrait of a Man" by Beham in the Weber collection, Hamburg.Graphischen Künste 28 (1905), pp. 41, 44, considers it one of Beham's best portrait paintings; remarks that it corresponds so closely to the 1527 print that it can be dated to the same year and is surely by the same hand; notes that von Eck appears older in the engraving due to strong contrasts of light and shadow in the modeling.Wissenschaftl. Verzeichnis der älteren Gemälde der Galerie Weber in Hamburg . 2nd ed. Dresden, 1907, p. 54, no. 57, lists it as "Portrait of a Man" by Beham, but questions the attribution, commenting that it may continue under his name until a different attribution is found.in Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler . 3, Leipzig, 1909, p. 192.Die Nürnberger Kleinmeister . Leipzig, 1910, p. 77, calls Beham's portraits his strongest works, mentioning this one in particular; notes, however, that von Eck was such a striking character that a lesser artist would probably have succeeded in producing an arresting portrait of him.Barthel Beham: Ein kritisches Verzeichnis seiner Kupferstiche . Strasbourg, 1911, p. 58, under no. 94, mentions this painting in relation to the first state of the print.Letter to R. L[angton]. Douglas . March 3, 1912, calls it perhaps the best painted portrait by Beham, based on the 1527 engraving.Rassegna d'arte 12 (April–May 1912), p. 76, finds this "severe and penetrating" portrait superior to other works by Beham.The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Catalogue of Paintings . 6th ed. New York, 1922, p. 13, as "Portrait of a Man (Leonardt von Eck or Johann Mayr von Eck)".Art in America 13 (October 1925), pp. 308–9, 314, confirms the sitter's identity based on the prints; calls the first state of the engraving a reproduction of the painting.Pantheon 11 (January–June 1933), p. 1, observes a "striving for monumentality" in this portrait which finds its ultimate expression in Beham's portrait of Ruprecht Stüpf [Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid].Meisterwerke europäischer Malerei in Amerika . Vienna, 1935, p. 339, pl. 210 [English ed., "Masterpieces of European Painting in America," New York, 1939, p. 323, pl. 210], notes that either this painting or a preparatory drawing for it served as the basis for the 1527 print.A Catalogue of German Paintings of the Middle Ages and Renaissance in American Collections . Cambridge, Mass., 1936, p. 57, no. 216.Der Türmer: Deutsche Monatshefte 39 (January 1937), pp. 300, 302–3, ill. p. 299, calls it the most beautiful portrait Beham ever painted.Pantheon 26 (November 1940), p. 258, mentions this painting as a precursor to Beham's introduction of the three-quarter length portrait to Germany in 1528, in the companion portraits of Ruprecht and Ursula Stüpf [Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid].The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings . New York, 1947, pp. 192–93, ill.The Book of Costume . New York, 1948, vol. 1, p. 388, no. 1029, ill. p. 389, refers to the sitter's hat as a "judicial coif".Bartel Beham: Kritischer Katalog seiner Kupferstiche, Radierungen, Holzschnitte . Baden-Baden, 1958, p. 18 under no. 75, mentions it in relation to the first state of the print.Jahrbuch der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen in Baden-Württemberg 4 (1967), p. 50, believes the painting probably follows the 1527 print.Painting and Sculpture in Germany and the Netherlands 1500 to 1600 . Baltimore, 1969, pp. 231–32, pl. 215, call it Beham's earliest "dated" portrait and note that when it was painted Durer had just made his engraving of Erasmus, which directly effected Beham's [first state] of the print.Deutsche und niederländische Kunst der Reformationszeit . Cologne, 1973, p. 251, fig. 207.Apollo 109 (June 1979), p. 423, fig. 25, notes that Douglas bought this portrait at the Weber sale in 1912, and that Friedländer had spoken highly of the painting.in Köpfe der Lutherzeit . Exh. cat., Hamburger Kunsthalle. Munich, 1983, p. 74 under no. 19, fig. 14, discusses the two prints as having followed this painting.Early German Painting, 1350–1550: The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection . London, 1991, p. 404, calls it the first portrait executed by Beham in Munich, which prompted portrait commissions from Duke Wilhelm IV and "the patriciate".in Bauern in Bayern . Exh. cat., Herzogschloss Straubing. Munich, 1992, pp. 96–97, no. 65, ill. (color), provides biographical information for von Eck.Tafelmalerei in Nürnberg, 1350–1550 . Königstein, 1993, pp. 155, 280–81, no. 162, fig. 605, notes that this commission indicates that Beham was already advancing within the ducal court of Munich.Letter to Katharine Baetjer . October 27, 1996, observes that the sitter's cross-armed pose—which seems very informal compared with other German Renaissance portraits—and his absence of outer wear, suggest a private function for the portrait.in The Dictionary of Art . 3, New York, 1996, p. 507, remarks that in this picture Beham used the Italianate half-length format of Dürer's engraving of Erasmus "reputedly for the first time in a German painted portrait"; calls it typical of his portraits of the middle and upper classes.in "The Print in the North: The Age of Albrecht Dürer and Lucas van Leyden." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 54 (Spring 1997), p. 49, notes that this painting and the first state of the print were probably based on a now-lost drawing.Barthel Beham: Ein Maler aus dem Dürerkreis . Munich, 1999, pp. 71–72, 187–88, no. 6, fig. 69 (color), maintains that this painting is based on the first state of the print [see Ref. Löcher 1967], suggesting that the position of the sitter was reversed to face a pendant portrait of von Eck's wife; finds the painting's execution unconvincing and questions the attribution to Beham.
Add to My Met Gallery
Print
Previous View
Enlarge
Zoom