The Artist: For a biography of Gerard David, see “Gerard David (born about 1455, died 1523).” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–.

The Painting: This Virgin and Child painting is exceptional for its many references to the city of Bruges, where it was commissioned, painted, and most likely housed in one of the pre-eminent religious institutions of the day, the Carthusian monastery of Genadedal. The Virgin and Child are presented in a grand arched porch, flanked by red stone columns with Italianate capitals, capped by foliate forms and putti. To the accompaniment of harp and lute music played by two angels, Mary is crowned as Queen of Heaven by an additional two angels above. The Christ Child holds rosary beads in his left hand, recalling the prayer recited to the Virgin, the Ave Maria. Although the theme is an age-old and popular one, here it has been modernized and personalized, presumably for the patron, by placing the figures before a view of contemporary Bruges. The churches of Sint-Jacobs (Saint James) and Onze-Lieve-Vrouwe (the Collegiate Church of Our Lady, with its tower in the pre-1519 construction state) appear to the left and right of the Virgin’s head, respectively, in the background. A Carthusian monk, absorbed in his reading, strolls in the far left corner of the enclosed garden. This indicates the site of the former Carthusian monastery at Genadedal (destroyed in 1578 during the Wars of Religion), just outside the city walls of Bruges.

The prominence of the Virgin in The Met’s painting is due to her esteemed status as patron of the Carthusian Order. Additional elements in the painting express a principal doctrine of the order, advocated by the highly influential fifteenth-century theologian, Denys the Carthusian.[1] This was, namely, the Virgin’s participatory role as the co-Redemptrix with Christ in the salvation of humankind. On the lower border of the cloth around the Christ Child are the words "IHESVS [RE]DEMPT[OR]" (Jesus Redeemer). This, as well as the crosses on the fillets worn by the angels and the Virgin’s red cloak (the color of Christ’s Passion), signify Christ’s suffering on the cross for the salvation of mankind. In the garden behind the Virgin are flowers and plants symbolic of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin, representing Mary’s compassion with the suffering Christ. At the lower left is the iris or sword lily, recalling the prophesy of Simeon in the Gospel of Saint Luke about the rejection of Christ that emotionally pierced the heart of the Virgin, and the strawberry plant denoting righteousness. At the right is columbine for both the innocence and sorrow of the Virgin Mary. Strewn across the grassy meadow are daisies, symbolizing the sweet innocence of the Child Jesus.[2]

Careful attention has been paid to the two music-making angels, who play the harp and the lute, seemingly quite realistically. These were known as bas instruments, which produced a soft sound, suitable for liturgical services (see also the Copy after Robert Campin, 05.39.2). According to the early music scholar Karel Moens,[3] the harp is a diatonic harp with seventeen strings. The tuning pins (westpins) and the hitch pins (small hooks), typical of the late-medieval harp, are white and possibly made of bone. The harp strings here are painted in shell gold, perhaps referring to metal strings rather than the ordinary gut strings, or perhaps in reference to a heavenly site. The small lute may have been modeled after a Flemish or Brabant late-fifteenth-century instrument, whose makers were active in Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp, and Brussels. Pieter de Prost in Bruges, for example, built lutes for the Burgundian court. This lute appears to have four double strings and one single string, corresponding to the nine tuning pegs, as described in 1460 by Paul Paulirinus in his Liber viginti atrium. The strings were plucked with the fingers or with a plectrum (usually a quill), as here.

This Virgin and Child is among several Bruges School paintings that copy the exact same motif of the Virgin and Child, with the awkward pose of the Child’s left arm twisted backward over the Virgin’s shoulder and the other arm grasping her neck, or as here, her hair (Ainsworth 1998, pp. 261, 263; see also The Met, 89.15.24). The origin of this curious pose is found in Byzantine icons from the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, and modified versions made in the fifteenth century in Crete could well have reached Flanders through trade relations that existed at the time (Ainsworth 2004, pp. 546–47). Duke Philip the Good owned several icons that appear in his inventories as á la façon grèce or d’ancienne façon, and various others could be found in churches in Belgium as well as copies of icons in illuminated manuscripts and prints (Ainsworth 2004, pp. 547–53). Specifically, the pose of the Virgin and Child derives from the Byzantine type known as the Madonna Pelagonitissa (see fig. 1 above). It is possible that an icon of this type, believed to have miraculous powers or perhaps an indulgenced image, was housed at the Carthusian monastery at Genadedal and fostered the copies made of it (for example, a close variant by the Master of the André Madonna in the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid).

The Attribution and Date: Early on, some attributed this painting to the Bruges School or to the Master of the André Madonna (see Eisler 1969, Held 1969, and Heinemann 1969). However, since its gift to The Met by Charles and Jane Wrightsman in 1977, there has been general consensus that Gerard David painted it about 1510–15 (see Refs.). Easily recognizable are David’s familiar types: the serene and sweet Virgin and the alert and squirming Christ Child. A hallmark of his style, and beautifully integrated here, is the extraordinary attention that David paid to the sensitive and realistic depiction of hands—those of the Virgin holding the Christ Child close to her chest, and those of the music-making angels playing their instruments. David studied various poses and the skeletal structure of hands in preparatory drawings (see Ainsworth 1998, figs. 1, 14). Representative of David’s mature phase of production, this painting shows an exquisite balance of color and light within the composition, accomplishing a convincing placement of the figures within the space rather than simply before it. With a new appreciation of Italianate style, due probably to commissions he received from Italian patrons (see 50.145.9ab), David began to introduce, particularly in the face of the Virgin, a slight sfumato effect. He practiced this in a drawing of the Head of a Girl in brush and black ink over black chalk with some white heightening on paper (Hamburger Kunsthalle; Ainsworth 1998, p. 22, fig. 26). This is seen to an even greater extent in David’s Rest on the Flight into Egypt in The Met (49.7.21). He also enhanced the solid, three-dimensional forms of the music-making angels with a delicate chiaroscuro treatment, and at this time began to introduce the striking couleur changeant effects seen in the draperies of the lute-playing angel.

The direct model for the motif of David’s Virgin and Child is found in Jan van Eyck’s Virgin and Child at the Fountain (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp; fig. 2) or an exact copy of it (for example, private collection, New York; see Ainsworth 1998, p. 265, fig. 244). In a drawing of the same size and scale (Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin; fig. 3), David copied this motif from Van Eyck’s painting for use as the focal point of his own work (Ainsworth 1985 and 1998, p. 29). David’s careful attention to every detail of Van Eyck’s figures, especially the fall of the draperies and their modeling, allowed him to produce a more general underdrawing for his Virgin and Child. David restricted the underdrawing mostly to the contours of forms, but still developed here and there the typical handling found in his Berlin drawing of short, parallel hatching for shallow folds, and longer parallel hatching for the shadows of deeper folds (fig. 4).

Technical examination of the painting with infrared reflectography and x-radiography (Ainsworth 1998, and forthcoming Technical Notes) shows that David initially planned to follow Van Eyck’s model exactly, including the profile view of Christ’s head and the Virgin’s hair pulled in close to the nape of the neck (figs. 5, 6). However, in the upper paint layers, he conformed to his own stylistic preferences, fashioning his accustomed Virgin type with loose-flowing hair and turning the Child’s head to gaze directly at the viewer.

The Patron and Function of the Painting: The intriguing question is who might have commissioned this work, and did the commission include a specific request to copy—albeit, in updated form—the model of Jan van Eyck’s Virgin and Child at the Fountain? Clearly, it must have been someone who was closely connected with the Carthusian monastery of Genadedal, who wished to commemorate an event with this painting or possibly to donate it to the charterhouse as a special gift. Unfortunately, the Genadedal archives are lost and, therefore, silent on this account.

The Charterhouse of Bruges enjoyed ducal support and bequests from some of the most prominent families in Bruges. The Adornes family, from Genoa and since the thirteenth century important members of Bruges’s merchant society, had close connections with Genadedal (Capron 2018, pp. 28–29). Several members of the family joined the monastery or the Bruges Carthusians and were generous in bequests of buildings, revenues, and books.[4] Indeed, two other paintings in New York, the Virgin and Child with Saints Barbara and Elizabeth and Jan Vos by Jan van Eyck with workshop assistance (Frick Collection; see Capron 2018), and the Portrait of a Carthusian by Petrus Christus (The Met, 49.7.19) are also linked with the same monastery.

Could there possibly be clues to the patron’s identity or at least nationality within the details of the painting? As noted above, the view of Bruges in the background of the painting includes the Church of Saint James (left) and the Church of Our Lady (right), two of the most prominent churches in Bruges, even if they are not depicted in their correct physical relationship to each other. This suggests that these churches may have been significant for the person who commissioned the painting.[5] The Church of Our Lady, centrally located, was the most important church in town, housing various relics and, as of 1506, Michelangelo’s sculpture of the Virgin and Child, a gift of Giovanni and Alessandro Moscheroni (Mouscron), who were wealthy Italian cloth merchants. The Church of Saint James was close to the Prinsenhof, frequented by the Dukes of Burgundy when in Bruges. Tommaso Portinari and his wife, Maria Magdalena Baroncelli (The Met, 14.40.626–27) had their tomb chapel there, as did Willem Moreel, Bruges’ Burgomaster, and Jean de Gros, ducal secretary and Treasurer of the Order of the Golden Fleece.[6] The strong Italian presence in the parish of Saint James and the attendance of prominent Italians at Saint James’s church may be of significance here. If so, then other features of the painting, such as the addition of classical putti on the Italianate columns at a late paint stage, and the sfumato treatment of the Virgin’s face as well as chiaroscuro treatment of the music-making angels may suggest preferences of an Italian patron.[7]

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2011; updated Ainsworth 2019

[1] Otto von Simson, “Compassio and Co-redemptio in Rogier van der Weyden’s Descent from the Cross,” Art Bulletin 35 (1953), pp. 14–15; Penny Howell Jolly, “Rogier van der Weyden’s Escorial and Philadelphia Crucifixions and Their Relation to Fra Angelico at San Marco,” Oud Holland 95 (1981), pp. 119–20.
[2] The flower symbolism noted here is taken from Mirella Levi D’Ancona, The Garden of the Renaissance: Botanical Symbolism in Italian Painting, Florence, 1977, pp. 105–66, 124–25, 365–67.
[3] Email exchange between Karel Moens and Maryan Ainsworth, March 25 and 29, 2019 (Curatorial Files, Department of European Paintings).
[4] Maximiliaan P. J. Martens, “Artistic Patronage in Bruges Institutions, c. 1440–1482,” Ph.D. diss., University of California at Santa Barbara, 1992, p. 293.
[5] This may be true as well for the Master of the André Madonna copy after David’s painting in The Met (Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid), as well as Gerard David’s Portrait of an Augustinian Friar (?) Praying (National Gallery, London; NG710), which shows the Church of Our Lady as well as a tower of Saint Salvator’s Church. A version of the London painting with a different portrait of an Augustinian friar also shows the same two churches (Cleveland Museum of Art).
[6] Paula Nutall, From Flanders to Florence: The Impact of Netherlandish Painting, 1400–1500, New Haven, 2004, pp. 46–47.
[7] As Paula Nuttall, among others, has shown, Hans Memling, David’s predecessor in Bruges, also made specific formal adjustments to his paintings that were intended for Italian clients; see Paula Nuttall, “Memling’s Pagagnotti “Virgin and Child': Italian Renaissance sculpture reimagined,” in Sculpture Journal 26.1 (2017), p. 27.

Support: The support was constructed from two planks of oak from the Baltic/Polish region, with the grain oriented vertically. Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1494 with a more plausible date of 1500 onwards.[1] The boards were originally held in place with dowels: evidence of one dowel can be seen in the x-radiograph (see fig. 7 above). The presence of unpainted wood margins and a barbe on all sides indicates that the original dimensions of the painting are preserved and that an engaged frame was in place when the panel was prepared and painted.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a white ground. Examination with infrared reflectography revealed the presence of an underdrawing in a liquid material using what appears to be a pen (fig. 4).[2] All major contours for the figures were underdrawn quite freely. Facial features were indicated with cursory marks: brief dashes to place the eyes, nostrils, lips and chins. There is some underdrawing in the background although, in the infrared reflectogram, it is often difficult to distinguish from areas of dark paint. It is possible to make out underdrawn lines in the buildings, specifically in the churches of Our Lady and Saint James. A small amount of hatching added to the drapery, however, was not systematically applied. Considering the underdrawing together with the painting, the irregular use of hatching could have been strategic. For the robes of the angel at lower left—ultimately painted a deep green—David used long parallel hatches to indicate broad areas of shadow; while in the angel’s robe at upper left—painted a light blue—he used neat rows of short curved dashes to shade only the deepest folds; and in the angel’s robe at lower right—painted as a delicate changeant fabric—he used very little hatching at all. David may have been anticipating the varying covering powers of the paints he planned to use and so in the lighter colors, he intentionally limited underdrawing to important lines only. There are only a few instances of hatching in the Virgin’s drapery, likely due to the existence of the detailed drawing, now in the Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin (see Catalogue Entry and fig. 3).

David made several adjustments to the underdrawing during the course of painting. Most consist of minor corrections to contours, such as in the Virgin’s hands, but he also altered the drapery folds, as in the angel at lower right and, most significantly, the Virgin’s red robe. In the Virgin’s robe he departed from the Eyckian model when bringing the robe up to the edge of the stone step and, in fact, allowed it to protrude slightly over the step. David also changed the bases of the columns, from what appear to be octagons in the underdrawing to square bases in the painting.

Paint Layers: The painting is in remarkably good condition, with the delicate uppermost glazes intact and the palette still vibrant. In a slight departure from his usual approach to lighting, David combined an outdoor setting with more dramatic indoor lighting effects by way of a canny compositional decision. The landscape—with a view of Bruges—dominates and anchors the composition, but by placing the figures under the stone archway, David could light them more strongly than in a typical outdoor scene. When painting the fleshtones he incorporated some grey, particularly notable in the Virgin and Child, creating more intense light and shadow. David seems to have first laid in a pinkish underlayer then added cooler modeling with a small amount of grey, but not nearly to the degree observed in the Met’s Rest on the Flight into Egypt (see Technical Notes for 49.7.21). The x-radiograph of the Virgin and Child with Four Angels is still what one would expect of fleshtones painted in a manner characteristic of the late fifteenth century, with lead white generally restricted to highlights and warm glazes for the shadows, as opposed to the more widespread use of lead white observed in the Rest on the Flight into Egypt. However, the use of grey, even minimally, is a notable departure from the technique seen in his earlier paintings. David also added warm brown outlines to the fleshtones in this painting, possibly to offset their slightly cool tone.

Close examination of the painting reveals how closely David referenced Van Eyck’s Virgin and Child at the Fountain in his composition. There is a significant variation in the depictions of drapery: the angels’ robes throughout are painted with rounded, naturalistic folds in David’s typical style, while the Virgin’s drapery is more linear with deep shadows often indicated with final painted lines of dark red, in keeping with Van Eyck’s approach to drapery. Although David made adjustments to the arrangement of the Virgin’s drapery from the Eyckian model to fit his composition, he faithfully imitated Van Eyck’s style and painting technique.

David also made a few significant alterations during the painting process: he initially followed Van Eyck’s Virgin and Child at the Fountain closely, painting the Child’s head in profile and the Virgin’s hair tightly pulled in to her head. David then changed these details during the painting process: rotating the Child’s head toward the viewer and loosening the Virgin’s hair. Examination with infrared reflectography and x-radiography revealed that David had already begun to add some modeling to the Child’s face in the profile pose before making the change. He also left a reserve for the tightly styled hair of the Virgin, only making the change to the looser hairstyle after painting the landscape (figs. 4–7). Another noteworthy modification to the painting was made early: the red stone columns and elaborate capitals with putti were not part of the original conception of the painting and were added on top of simpler, beige-colored stone columns. It is not clear exactly when this change was made. The simpler columns were underdrawn and appear to have been fully painted, but the more ornate columns could have been added very early, even by David himself.

The order in which the figures and background were painted suggests that the entire composition was executed by a single hand. The sky, archway, and landscape were painted first, with reserves left for the angels and the Virgin and Child. There are several areas where, after painting the figures, David returned to the background to adjust or finesse the contours, and this evidence of moving back and forth between figures and background suggests that a single artist carried out the entire composition at once, rather than delegating the landscape or background to a different artist or assistant.

The strings of the lute were gilded with what appears to be shell gold, in the only instance of gilding in the painting.

Sophie Scully 2020

[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, report dated May 13, 1997. The report can be found in the files of the Department of Paintings Conservation. “The youngest heartwood ring was formed out in the year 1483. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1492, more plausible is a felling date between 1496..1498….1502 + x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1500 onwards. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and 2 years for seasoning, as probably usual in the 14th/15th century, a creation is plausible from 1500 onwards.”
[2] Infrared reflectography was acquired with an OSIRIS InGaAs near-infrared camera fitted with a 6-element, 150 mm focal length f/5.6–f/45 lens; 900-1700 nm spectral response, by Evan Read, March 2019.

Inscription: Inscribed (on cloth): IHESVS [RE]DEMPT[OR] (Jesus Redeemer)

by descent to private collection, Madrid (until about 1940; sold to Linares); [Abelardo Linares S.A., Madrid, from about 1940–62; sold to Wrightsman]; Mr. and Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, New York (1962–77; cat., 1973, no. 7)

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art," September 22, 1998–February 21, 1999, no. 81.

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557)," March 23–July 4, 2004, no. 355.

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart's Renaissance," October 6, 2010–January 17, 2011, no cat. number.

THIS WORK MAY NOT BE LENT, BY TERMS OF ITS ACQUISITION BY THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART.

A. Janssens de Bisthoven. Letter to Mrs. Francois (Anne) Poulet. October 22, 1968, identifies the buildings in the background and the artist's probable point of view.

J. C. Ebbinge-Wübben in The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection. Ed. Rudolf J. Heinemann. Castagnola-Ticino, 1969, pp. 206–7, ascribes both this painting and the Thyssen-Bornemisza variant to the master of the André Madonna, observing, however, that this painting is "nearer in style to Gerard David".

Colin Eisler. Letter to Everett Fahy. April 17, 1969, argues that this picture may prove to have been painted by an "artist somewhat David's junior, belonging to the generation of Sittow and Gossart".

Everett Fahy. "A Madonna by Gerard David." Apollo 90 (September 1969), pp. 190–95, ill. (color), attributes this picture to Gerard David, noting that Panofsky endorsed this attribution in correspondence with the Wrightsmans while Sterling, Held, and R. Heinemann questioned it; dates it about 1500–1505, traces motifs in it to the work of earlier painters and argues that the variant in the Thyssen-Bornemisza collection is by a different artist; reasons that the presence of a Carthusian monk in the courtyard makes it seem probable that the picture was commissioned by a Charthusian and that its small size indicates that it was probably designed as a private devotional picture .

Rudolf J. Heinemann. Letter to Everett Fahy. March 24, 1969, endorses Ebbinge-Wübben's attribution of this picture to the Master of the André Madonna.

Julius S. Held. Letter to Everett Fahy. April 25, 1969, observes that it is prettier than any work known to him by David and attributes it to a follower, commenting that "despite the derivative nature of [its] style and composition, it is a very fine produce of the Bruges school".

Susan Urbach. Letter to Anne Poulet. April 21, 1971, calls it the Vorbild (model, prototype) of the painting in the Thyssen collection and relates it to works by other artists.

Everett Fahy in The Wrightsman Collection. Vol. 5, Paintings, Drawings. [New York], 1973, pp. 53–61, no. 7, ill. p. 55 (color), figs. 1–2 (details), 4 (reverse), dates it about 1500; relates it to works by other artists.

R. A. Cecil. "The Wrightsman Collection." Burlington Magazine 118 (July 1976), p. 518.

Mary Sprinson in The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Notable Acquisitions, 1975–1979. New York, 1979, p. 48, ill. (color).

Edwin James Mundy III. "Gerard David Studies." PhD diss., Princeton University, 1980, pp. 27–28, 51 nn. 44–46, calls it "unmistakably a work completely executed by David's hand" and places it close in date to the Justice panels [Groeningemuseum, Bruges].

Larry Silver. "Fountain and Source: A Rediscovered Eyckian Icon." Pantheon 41 (April–May–June 1983), p. 101, ill.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Gerard David's Working Methods: Some Preliminary Observations." Le Dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Ed. Roger van Schoute and Dominique Hollanders-Favart. Colloque 5, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1985, pp. 54–57, 58 n. 3, pls. 15, 19–21 (overall, reflectogram assembly of two details, x-ray of detail), identifies a drawing in the Berlin Kupferstichkabinett (pl. 17) as a study by David on which the Wrightsman painting was based; discusses the drawing in relation to the underdrawing in the painting.

John Oliver Hand in The Age of Bruegel: Netherlandish Drawings in the Sixteenth Century. Exh. cat., National Gallery of Art. Washington, 1986, p. 131 n. 8, observes that the drawing in Berlin [see Ref. Ainsworth 1985] has so much of the character of a copy that he finds it hard to discern David's hand.

Hans J. van Miegroet. Gerard David. Antwerp, 1989, pp. 246, 251, 254, 265 n. 65, p. 304, no. 38, colorpls. 239 and 242 (detail), ill. p. 304, ascribes it to David and dates it 1515–20.

Jeltje Dijkstra. "Origineel en Kopie: Een Onderzoek naar de Navolging van de Meester van Flémalle en Rogier van der Weyden." PhD diss., Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1990, p. 65.

Introduction by Walter A. Liedtke in Flemish Paintings in America: A Survey of Early Netherlandish and Flemish Paintings in the Public Collections of North America. Antwerp, 1992, p. 327, no. 178, ill.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. Petrus Christus: Renaissance Master of Bruges. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1994, p. 129, fig. 137, dates it about 1505, and observes that the landscape seems to meet the needs of a specific patron.

Didier Martens. "Identification de deux 'portraits' d'église dans la peinture brugeoise de la fin du Moyen Âge." Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor schone Kunsten, Antwerpen (1995), pp. 33, 35, 37, 39–41, 45–46, 55, fig. 1, sees a source for the suspended angels in our panel in a "Virgin and Child" in the collection of the Comte de Bergeyck, Antwerp, which he dates about 1480–90; rejects the identification of the church in the left background in our panel and in the Thyssen picture as Saint Donatien, identifying it instead as the church of Saint-Jacques seen from the North; finds accurate details in the Thyssen "portrait" of the church that do not appear in our panel and concludes that the Thyssen picture cannot depend on ours; believes that both pictures depend on the same earlier model, and that neither the Master of the André Madonna nor the author of the Wrightsman panel lived close to the church of Saint-Jacques; if they did, they obstinately presented the church at an earlier point in the history of its construction.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 261, ill.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "A Meeting of Sacred and Secular Worlds." From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth and Keith Christiansen. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1998, pp. 28–29, 74, 222, 280, 306–08, 324, no. 81, ill. (color), dates it about 1510–15, discusses the iconography, and, due to the ubiquity of the type of the Virgin and Child in the art of Bruges, suggests that the model was a venerated icon, probably located in Bruges, perhaps with indulgences associated with it.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. Gerard David: Purity of Vision in an Age of Transition. New York, 1998, pp. vii, 20, 29, 31, 256, 261–66, 269–72, 309–10 nn. 22, 35, 46, 48, 55, 56, ill. (overall and detail in color, infrared reflectogram details, and x-radiographs), agrees with Martens (see Ref. 1995) that our panel and the related André Madonna in the Thyssen Collection may both derive from a model available in Bruges, perhaps in David's workshop itself; suggests that the pictures may have been produced side by side from a common model for the setting, in order to accommodate two clients who wanted different Madonna icons represented in the same locally recognizable site.

Hélène Mund in Dirk Bouts (ca. 1410–1475): Een Vlaams primitief te Leuven. Ed. Maurits Smeyers. Exh. cat., Sint-Pieterskerk en Predikherenkerk, Leuven. Louvain, 1998, p. 246 n. 40.

Lorne Campbell. National Gallery Catalogues: The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Schools. London, 1998, p. 120, ill., notes that the view of the church of Our Lady in the National Gallery's "An Augustinian Friar(?) Praying" by Gerard David is so close to that in the present work that both must be based on the same drawing.

Larry Silver. "Old-Time Religion: Bernart van Orley and the Devotional Tradition." Pantheon 56 (1998), p. 84 n. 44.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Commentary: An Integrated Approach." Early Netherlandish Painting at the Crossroads: A Critical Look at Current Methodologies. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth. New York, 2001, p. 106.

Stephanie Buck. Die niederländischen Zeichnungen des 15. Jahrhunderts im Berliner Kupferstichkabinett: Kritischer Katalog. Turnhout, Belgium, 2001, pp. 178–81 n. 10, fig. 72, attributes the Berlin drawing after Jan van Eyck's "Virgin at the Fountain" (Koninklijk Museum, Antwerp) to Gerard David or to a member of his circle, and assumes that in the latter case David would have had access to the drawing as a compositional model; finds the parallel shading on the left side of the Virgin's face more summary than that in David's other drawings, and the modelling less sensitive.

Cyriel Stroo et al. The Flemish Primitives: Catalogue of Early Netherlandish Painting in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium. Vol. 3, The Hieronymus Bosch, Albrecht Bouts, Gerard David, Colijn de Coter and Goossen van der Weyden Groups. Brussels, 2001, p. 240.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Was Simon Bening a Panel Painter?" Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts 11–12 (2002), pp. 13, 15, ill. (detail), notes that the facial types of Virgin and Child paintings in the Prado and the MMA (32.100.53), which she illustrates as "Attributed to Simon Bening," are modeled after David's late works, in particular this Virgin and Child with Four Angels and his Virgin and Child in a Landscape in the Museum Boijmans-Van Beuningen, Rotterdam.

Colin Eisler in Gerard David y el paisaje flamenco. Exh. cat., Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza. Madrid, 2003, pp. 15, 17, fig. 5, notes that David has combined here the architectural setting of Campin's Madonna and Child in a Niche, known through numerous copies, and the figures of Jan van Eyck's Madonna and Child at the Fountain (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp).

Maryan W. Ainsworth in Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557). Ed. Helen C. Evans. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 2004, pp. 590–93, no. 355, ill. (color).

Everett Fahy in The Wrightsman Pictures. Ed. Everett Fahy. New York, 2005, pp. 2–5, no. 1, ill. (color), accepts the attribution to David [see Ref. Ainsworth 1983] of a drawing in the Berlin Kupferstichkabinett and sees it as as a work made in preparation for this panel.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Gerard David. Vita e opere." Il Polittico della Cervara di Gerard David. Ed. Clario Di Fabio. Exh. cat., Musei di Strada Nuova — Palazzo Bianco, Genoa. Milan, 2005, pp. 21–22, fig. 10 (color).

Maryan W. Ainsworth in Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart's Renaissance. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 2010, pp. 124, 144, fig. 145 (color).

Diane Wolfthal and Cathy Metzger. Los Angeles Museums. Brussels, 2014, pp. 115, 117, fig. 14 (color).

Kathryn Calley Galitz. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Masterpiece Paintings. New York, 2016, pp. 272–73, no. 168, ill. pp. 173, 273 (color).

Katrien Lichtert. "The Mother God of Tenderness: The Introduction and Dissemination of an Iconic Image in Early Netherlandish Art." Paths to Europe: From Byzantium to the Low Countries. Ed. Bernard Coulie. Cinisello Balsamo, Milan, 2017, pp. 126, 129 n. 40, fig. 6 (color).

Emma Capron. The Charterhouse of Bruges: Jan van Eyck, Petrus Christus, and Jan Vos. Exh. cat., Frick Collection. New York, 2018, pp. 40, 142, 144, fig. 22 (color).

Larry Silver. "Eyckian Icons and Copies." Making Copies in European Art 1400–1600: Shifting Tastes, Modes of Transmission, and Changing Contexts. Ed. Maddalena Bellavitis. Leiden, 2018, pp. 141, 143, fig. 3.7 (color).

Astrid Harth and Frederica Van Dam in Van Eyck: An Optical Revolution. Ed. Maximiliaan Martens et al. Exh. cat., Museum voor Schone Kunsten. Ghent, 2020, pp. 187, 493, fig. 7.3 (color).

This work may not be lent, by terms of its acquisition by The Metropolitan Museum of Art.