Virgin and Child

The Artist: For a biography of Dieric Bouts, see the Catalogue Entry for Virgin and Child (30.95.280).

The Painting and its Subject: The Nursing Madonna, or Maria lactans, was one of the most popular subjects in Early Netherlandish painting, as well as another type, the so-called Glykophilousa type (or Affectionate Virgin; see 30.95.280). The representation of the nursing Virgin originates with Early Christian Coptic Egyptian and Byzantine Theotokos Galaktotrophousa, of which the iconographic origin may ultimately be traced back to Ptolemaic Isis Lactans (see, for example, 45.4.4; 2021.41.39).[1] The Maria Lactans became an especially favored subject in the late medieval Catholic world, on both sides of the Alps, in the wake of private devotional practices. Numerous examples from the Burgundian Netherlands still survive, which enables us to trace the genealogy of compositional types and variations since the generation of Robert Campin (ca. 1375–1444) and Jan van Eyck (d. 1441).[2]

Following the basic format common both for the Maria Lactans and the Glykophlousa, The Met’s painting shows the figures in a spatially ambiguous setting closed off by a cloth of honor that covers the entire background. Since the original frame is lost, it is uncertain whether The Met’s Virgin and Child was originally conceived as an independent panel or as part of a devotional diptych paired with the portrait of a donor in prayer (see, for example, the Catalogue Entry for 14.40.626–27).

In comparison with the numerous surviving images of the Maria lactans, the iconographic oddity of The Met panel is the red-beaded necklace worn by the Christ Child. The translucent red beads of equal size exclude the possibility that the necklace functions as a paternoster for prayer (as in 1975.1.130) or an apotropaic coral necklace (as in 1982.60.47). This type of purely decorative red necklace worn by the Child is not found in any other fifteenth-century Netherlandish paintings, whereas there are several fifteenth-century Italian examples (see 65.234). Close observation under the microscope suggested that the necklace of the Child is probably a later addition (see Technical Notes).

Furthermore, there remains a trace of a pearl fillet on the Virgin’s forehead which is now painted out yet can still be seen in the x-radiograph (see Technical Notes and fig. 1 above). The state before the overpainting is clearly visible in the photo reproduction of 1924 (fig. 2; Rieffel 1924, pp 56–57, pl. XV.). Although it was quite common to represent the Virgin with a headband in early Netherlandish painting, its arc was always depicted higher on the forehead (see, for example, 30.95.280). In contrast, in the 1924 photo, the arc circles downward with lavish pearls, reminiscent of contemporary Italian examples, such as the Virgin and Child by Carlo Crivelli (49.7.5). Max J. Friedländer wrote about our panel, on which there are “strange decorative chains on the Virgin's forehead and the child's neck” (Friedländer 1925, p. 127; Friedländer 1968, p. 73.), whereas the exhibition catalogue of 1929, a year after the painting’s purchase by Jules S. Bache from art dealer Joseph Duveen, shows The Met’s painting with the pearl fillet already painted out as it is now (Sperling 1929, no. 14). The motif was clearly overpainted due to Friedländer’s advice to the dealer. In the correspondence dated November 2, 1928, he stated “I believe that the beads on the forehead of the Madonna are not genuine and spoil the picture. Perhaps you will have a cautious restorer try to see whether this unsuitable ornament can be wiped out” (Duveen 1927; Friedländer 1937, p.91; Friedländer 1968, pp. 88–89).[3] In this correspondence, Friedländer only mentioned the fillet, which might explain the reason why the necklace remained untouched before the sale of the painting to Bache in 1928. Although The Met’s technical investigation provided neither a specific date for the addition of the necklace, nor concrete evidence showing the fillet as a later addition (see Technical Notes), the two decorative motifs may have been added together at some point by an owner with Italianate taste.

The Attribution and Date: In the previous scholarship (Schöne 1938, p. 215, no. 146; Campbell 1998, p. 56; Sprinson de Jesús 1998, pp. 230–31), The Met’s Virgin and Child has generally been regarded as executed by a less-skilled assistant in the workshop, or a follower of Dieric Bouts, modelled on the Virgin and Child at the National Gallery, London (fig. 3). In the London painting, unanimously considered as by Dieric Bouts himself (Campbell 1998, pp. 56–59), the lactans group is located in a domestic setting with an open window view. By contrast, The Met panel shows the figures before a brocade cloth of honor covering the entire background. Without the motif of the cushion on the windowsill of the London panel, the Christ Child in The Met panel is shown in a spatially ambiguous position, as if his naked body is hovering in the air rather than sitting securely on the lap of the Virgin. This oddity is often regarded as the result of the omission of the cushion motif in the copying process, thereby being an indication that The Met Virgin was made as a reduced copy based on the London prototype by an artist of inferior skill (Sprinson de Jesús 1998, p. 230).[4] Still, The Met’s painting shares some prominent features with the London panel such as the idealized facial type of the Virgin, the positions of her hands, and the ‘pomegranate’-patterned embroidered cloth of honor (Monnas 2008, p. 355).

Nonetheless, The Met’s painting seems to be more of a hybrid of the London prototype and a Rogerian type. The lactating Virgin with an embroidered cloth of honor was influential already in the generation before Bouts, as seen in the Master of Flémalle’s Madonna and Child, Van Eyck’s Lucca Madonna, or Rogier’s Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (fig. 4). This iconographic combination of the Maria lactans and the embroidered cloth of honor was adopted quickly into the traditional half-length format of the Virgin and Child image, especially in the circle of Rogier.[5] In Rogerian lactating images, the Christ Child’s position is often ambiguous in the pictorial space, including the position of a cushion on Mary’s lap.[6] These panels also feature, in common with The Met’s Virgin, the white headscarf, one end of which runs over the hair and the bosom, together with the breastfeeding arm in an embroidered sleeve of her gown. These details are not found in the London prototype, indicating that The Met’s panel was modelled also on this type of Rogerian nursing image, which had probably originated from Rogier’s Boston Saint Luke. Bouts’s contact with Rogier is open to question, unlike the case of Hans Memling, who shows, especially in his early works, a close stylistic affinity with the underdrawing techniques of Rogier (see 17.190.7).

The hybrid origin does not, however, designate The Met Virgin a pastiche status. For example, the resemblance of the Virgin’s face to the London prototype deserves scrutiny. When the two panels are overlapped with each other, despite the different measurements of the two panels, it becomes clear that the Virgins’ heads are painted roughly in the same placement. Some features, such as the proper right eye, bridge of the nose, and mouth, match well, but not exactly, in size and position with each other (fig. 5), whereas the other parts do not overlap, being in different sizes and positions. The infrared reflectography of The Met panel reveals that the underdrawing was likely to have been executed freehand, showing some spontaneity in the contour lines (fig. 6; see Technical Notes). It appears different from the rigid and schematic underdrawing that is typical of a transfer (in contrast to, for example, 71.156–57),[7] suggesting that the near-identical facial features in The Met’s painting were the result of freehand copying based on the London prototype or a common pattern.

Although condition issues make it difficult to assess the painting technique, especially in the flesh tones (see Technical Notes),[8] The Met’s panel seems to lack the attention to detail that is typical in the autograph works of Bouts. For example, the comparison of the cloth of honor demonstrates different hands in the two panels. The London panel exhibits meticulous cross-hatching in varied colors in the embroidery on the cloth, whereas our panel mostly shows parallel hatching in yellow (fig. 7). The latter, therefore, fails to convey the detailed effects of light reflecting on the embroidery threads. These observations provide additional evidence that The Met’s Virgin and Child was not executed by Dieric Bouts himself.

For further discussions on the attribution of this panel, it is helpful to study the x-radiography of The Met’s panel. The autograph works of Bouts, such as The Met’s 30.95.280, exhibit his careful, selective build-up of lead white paint to establish the volume of forms, especially in the flesh tones,[9] and the x-radiograph of The Met’s lactans panel shows, under the abraded and retouched paint surface, a similar distribution of lead white (see fig. 1 and Technical Notes). This, together with the observations above, indeed suggests that The Met Virgin was executed in the workshop of Dieric Bouts, although it is impossible to say if this was before or after the death of the master in 1475. In the Burgundian Netherlands, many Maria lactans images were produced in the second half of the fifteenth century. This small panel eloquently demonstrates the enterprise of the Bouts workshop in reaction to the popular demand for this intimate devotional image in the time of the Devotio Moderna.

Sumihiro Oki 2022

[1] Sabrine Higgins, “Divine Mothers: The Influence of Isis on the Virgin Mary in Egyptian Lactans-Iconography.” Journal of the Canadian Society for Coptic Studies 3–4 (2012), pp. 71–90.
[2] Dirk de Vos, “De Madonna-en-Kindtypologie bij Rogier van der Weyden en enkele minder gekende Flemalleske voorlopers.” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 13 (1971), pp. 60–161.
[3] Duveen 1927. In the correspondence, November 8, 1928, Friedländer wrote, “I studied this picture [49.7.18] very carefully some weeks ago at München and am quite sure now, that it is characteristic work by Dieric Bouts.” It is noteworthy that this comment postdates the publication of Volume III of Die Altniederländische Malerei, in which the author attributes The Met panel more negatively as a close replica of a copy of the Virgin and Child, the autograph work now in the National Gallery in London. See Friedländer 1925, p. 127; Friedländer 1968, p. 73. Later, he changed the attribution of The Met’s painting to “an original by Dieric Bouts” since the “disfiguring restorative work has been removed.” See Friedländer 1937, p. 91; Friedländer 1968, pp. 88–89.
[4] Sprinson de Jesús 1998, p. 230. The composition of the London panel was certainly influential. Many variations still survive including the German example at The Met (22.96), or even the Madonna and Child by Giovanni Bellini shows a distant echo (08.183.1).
[5] See, De Vos 1971.
[6] See, for example: Rogier van der Weyden, Virgin and Child, left wing of the Diptych of Jean Gros, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Tournai, inv. 481; Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden, Virgin and Child, Art Institute of Chicago, inv. 1933.1052; Follower of Rogier van der Weyden (Master of the Saint Ursula Legend Group), Virgin and Child (The Met, 17.190.16.
[7] Maryan W. Ainsworth, Facsimile in Early Netherlandish Painting: Dieric Bouts's "Virgin and Child", Exh. cat., New York, 1993, pp. 9–10. The matching of the eye, nose, and mouth with the London panel is also found in the Maria lactans panel in the Städel Museum in Frankfurt (inv. 1217), of which x-ray shows the typical Boutsian handling of the lead white in the flesh tones. See, Jochen Sander, Niederländische Gemälde im Städel,1400–1550, Mainz 1993, pp. 47–58.
[8] Note that The Met’s panel is quite abraded and has a discolored varnish layer. The current matte appearance does not necessarily reflect the original appearance of the hanging (see Technical Notes).
[9] Ainsworth 1993. esp. pp. 12–14. Her attributions are unanimously accepted. For example, see Périer-d'Ieteren 2006, pp. 126–33.

Support: The support was constructed from a single plank of oak with the grain oriented vertically. The oak originated in the Baltic/Polish regions. Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1437 and a more plausible creation date of 1439 onwards.[1] At some point before entering The Met’s collection, the panel was thinned to about 5 mm and cradled. The unpainted wood margins were also largely cut away, although a few millimeters remain on all edges. In addition, there are traces of a barbe on all edges, indicating that the original dimensions of the painted composition are preserved and that the panel was prepared in an engaged frame.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a white ground. Examination with infrared reflectography revealed the presence of an underdrawing executed using a liquid material.[2] The medium was quite dilute in some passages; see where it pooled in the Child’s left fingers, or at the Child’s proper left eye, where the medium was so dilute that it was apparently smudged when still wet. The artist laid out all the important contours of the two figures and their drapery in his underdrawing and added a good deal of hatching. The hatchmarks vary in boldness, seemingly due to the fluctuating dilution of the artist’s underdrawing medium. They are also quite irregular in their application, sometimes running in random directions, as in the Virgin’s forehead, and sometimes quite unevenly spaced, as in the strokes in the Child’s chest. This irregularity suggests that the artist added the hatchmarks hastily, in a summary fashion.

The underdrawing seems to have been executed freehand. The contour lines are simple but have some spontaneity, as opposed to the rigid and schematic appearance characteristic of a directly transferred pattern. The composition could well have been copied from a prototype; however, the artist did feel at liberty to adjust his underdrawn design in the painting stage, such as in the left hands of both the Child and the Virgin.

Paint Layers: Assessment of the painting technique is complicated by condition. It was quite abraded at some point in the past, as can be seen most easily in the brown passages, particularly the Virgin’s hair and the shading of the fleshtones, and in the red brocade on the Virgin’s sleeve. The flesh tones also appear rather abraded, but the extent of this is more difficult to evaluate beneath the current restoration. There is a good deal of retouching, likely more extensive than truly necessary, that has itself discolored. The painting has a thick and somewhat discolored varnish, which also negatively impacts the overall appearance.

Select passages where the original is better preserved offer a more accurate understanding of the artist’s technique. The Child’s proper left eye is only slightly abraded and hardly retouched, and here the artist’s attention to detail in the eye—the highlight on the white of the eye and the catchlight in the iris—are evident, suggesting a higher overall quality than the painting’s current appearance does. The lighting on the cloth of honor does not seem to reflect an accurate lighting scheme. Examination of the x-radiograph (see fig. 1 above) gives a sense of the handling of the flesh tones. Lead white was used sparingly, with not as precise a handling as seen in works attributed to Bouts himself, such as The Met’s Virgin and Child (see the x-radiograph and Technical Notes for 30.95.280), but still comparable. In general, the condition hinders evaluation of the technique and quality, and so consideration of the composition is valuable in assessing the relationship of this painting to the other versions (see Catalogue Entry).

There was once a pearl fillet on the Virgin’s forehead, as can be seen in a photograph from 1924 (fig. 2). Examination under the microscope revealed that these pearls were painted out at some point after the 1924 photograph and, indeed, evenly spaced and sized circles can be seen in the x-radiograph, painted in a radio-opaque material. A trace of gold leaf was evident between one pearl and the next during microscopic examination, suggesting that mordant gilding was also used in the fillet. The fillet, an unusual detail in the Virgin and Child compositions of this type and date, could be a later addition to the painting, but analysis would be required to shed further light on its date.

The Child’s red necklace appears to be a later addition to the painting. In a few instances, the red paint of the beads slightly overlaps cracks in the paint of the Child’s flesh, indicating that the red was applied over already aged paint. The red beads appear rather two-dimensional, but abrasion does not entirely explain this appearance; on close inspection they were not made with great skill. The string of the necklace is rather sloppy and some of the highlights on the beads are not accurately placed. See the Catalogue Entry for arguments regarding the historical incongruity of this necklace.

Sophie Scully 2022

[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, report dated May 23, 2015. The report can be found in the files of the Department of Paintings Conservation. “The youngest heartwood ring was formed out in the year 1422. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1435, more plausible is a felling date between 1435..1437…1441. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1437 upwards. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and 2 years for seasoning a creation is plausible from 1439 upwards.”
[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. Captured by Evan Read, May 2021.

Gabriel Johann Peter Weyer, Cologne (in 1852; cat., [1852], no. 180?); Prince Karl Anton von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (in 1871; cat., 1871, no. 29); the Princes of Hohenzollern, Königliches Museum, Sigmaringen; [A. S. Drey, Munich and New York, by 1925–28]; [Duveen, Paris and New York, 1928; sold for $200,000 to Bache]; Jules S. Bache, New York (1928–d. 1944; his estate, 1944–49; cats., 1929, unnumbered; 1937, no. 19; 1943, no. 18)

Munich. Königliches Kunstausstellungsgebäude. "Gemälden älterer Meister," 1869, no. 50 (as by Rogier van der Weyden, lent by the Prince of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen).

Frankfurt. Städel Institut. 1925, no catalogue? (lent by A. S. Drey).

Munich. Alte Pinakothek. "The Sigmaringen Gallery," 1928, no catalogue? (lent by A. S. Drey).

New York. F. Kleinberger Galleries. "Flemish Primitives," 1929, no. 14 (as by Bouts, lent by Jules S. Bache).

Exposition universelle et internationale de Bruxelles. "Cinq siècles d'art," May 24–October 13, 1935, no. 78 (lent by Jules S. Bache).

New York. World's Fair. "Masterpieces of Art: European Paintings and Sculpture from 1300–1800," May–October 1939, no. 24 (lent by Jules S. Bache).

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "The Bache Collection," June 16–September 30, 1943, no. 18.

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. 52.

F. A. Lehner. Fürstlich Hohenzollern'sches Museum zu Sigmaringen: Verzeichniss der Gemälde. Sigmaringen, 1871, p. 9, no. 29, as by Rogier van der Weyden.

Friedrich Winkler in "Vom neunten bis zum Ende des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts." Belgische Kunstdenkmäler. Ed. Paul Clemen. Vol. 1, Munich, 1923, p. 254, as a characteristic work by Bouts.

Franz Rieffel. "Das Fürstlich Hohenzollernsche Museum zu Sigmaringen: Gemälde und Bildwerke." Städel-Jahrbuch 3–4 (1924), pl. 15, as by Bouts.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 3, Dierick Bouts und Joos van Gent. Berlin, 1925, p. 127, no. 95a, lists this painting and one in the Albenas collection among the works of the followers and imitators of Bouts.

A Catalogue of Paintings in the Collection of Jules S. Bache. New York, 1929, unpaginated, ill.

Wilhelm R. Valentiner, ed. Unknown Masterpieces in Public and Private Collections. Vol. 1, London, 1930, no. 36, ill.

Leo van Puyvelde. "Les primitifs flamands à l'exposition de Bruxelles." Revue belge d'archéologie et d'histoire de l'art 5 (1935), p. 314, calls it the work of a follower of Rogier van der Weyden.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 14, Pieter Bruegel und Nachträge zu den früheren Bänden. Leiden, 1937, p. 91, observes that it can be recognized since cleaning as an original work of Dieric Bouts and calls the Albenas example somewhat weaker.

A Catalogue of Paintings in the Bache Collection. under revision. New York, 1937, unpaginated, no. 19, ill.

Wolfgang Schöne. Dieric Bouts und seine Schule. Berlin, 1938, p. 215, no. 146.

Duveen Pictures in Public Collections of America. New York, 1941, unpaginated, no. 175, ill.

Harry B. Wehle. "The Bache Collection on Loan." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 1 (June 1943), p. 288.

A Catalogue of Paintings in the Bache Collection. rev. ed. New York, 1943, unpaginated, no. 18, ill.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 45–47, ill.

Erwin Panofsky. Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character. Cambridge, Mass., 1953, vol. 1, p. 480 n. 2 (to p. 296), p. 492 n. 3 (to p. 317), states that it is erroneously ascribed to Bouts, and that it follows type of close-up Madonna portrayed by Saint Luke, listing examples of this type similar to ours; lists several Madonnas with neutral backgrounds as in ours, not attributable to Bouts.

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 12.

Colin Eisler. "Erik Larsen, Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York, 1960." Art Bulletin 46 (March 1964), p. 102.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 3, Dieric Bouts and Joos van Gent. New York, 1968, pp. 73, 88–89 n. 75, no. 95a, pl. 98, calls it by a follower of Bouts (ed. since it has been cleaned it has been acknowledged to be an original Bouts).

Charles Sterling. Letter. February 20, 1971, states that it is by a follower of Bouts, and that the type of the Virgin, her hand, and the lyrical, slightly mannered feeling, are of the period of the Ursula Master, who worked after Bouts's death.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 250, ill.

Mary Sprinson de Jesús in 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. 71, 74, 230–31, no. 52, ill. (color), places it in the last quarter of the 15th century.

Important Old Master Pictures. Christie's, London. 1998, pp. 36–37, under no. 24, mention it in relation to the replica, formerly in the collection of Florence J. Gould.

Meryle Secrest. Duveen: A Life in Art. New York, 2004, p. 418.

Catheline Périer-d'Ieteren. Dieric Bouts: The Complete Works. Brussels, 2006, p. 161 n.1.

Lisa Monnas. Merchants, Princes and Painters: Silk Fabrics in Italian and Northern Paintings, 1300–1550. New Haven, 2008, p. 355 n. 83.