The Holy Family

The Artist: For a biography of Joos van Cleve, see the Catalogue Entry for The Holy Family (32.100.57).

The Painting: A major shift in devotional images took place in the early sixteenth century when Joseph was increasingly added to traditional Virgin and Child images, initiating a new presentation of the Holy Family. In part, this new interest in Joseph as Christ’s earthly father was due to the writings of Jean Gerson (1363–1429), chancellor of the University of Paris and Dean of Sint-Donaaskerk in Bruges. Gerson considered Joseph, the Virgin Mary, and the Christ Child as an earthly vision of the Holy Trinity. Joseph’s new key role was officially acknowledged in 1479 when Pope Sixtus IV introduced the feast of Saint Joseph into the liturgical calendar. Admiration for Joseph as the protector of Mary and Jesus grew with Apocryphal accounts of his life, namely in 1490 with the publication of the Histoire van den heiligen Joseph, issued by the Brothers of the Common Life.[1] Subsequently, the earliest scholarly treatise on Saint Joseph, the Summa de donis S. Josephi by the Dominican Isidro Isolani, appeared in 1522.[2] Joseph thus became the paradigm of humility and devotion to the Virgin and Child.

The casual manner in which the Holy Family is presented, like a scene from daily life, ushers in a new genre of painting that would be fully developed in the seventeenth century. Here the Virgin and Child appear before a parapet in a shallow space that barely allows room enough for Joseph. Christ suckles at his mother’s breast, but gazes directly at the viewer, engaging the devotee in a contemplation of the spiritual food offered by his ultimate sacrifice (Ainsworth 1998). Dressed in a blue tabard over a robe with a black collar, and wearing a dark cap beneath his straw hat, Joseph reads undisturbed from a devotional book at a lectern. His advanced age is emphasized by the necessity of reading glasses and his sagging jowls. Although the illegible text of Joseph’s book provides no further clues, certain elements in the foreground imply a religious context—a glass holding lilies represents the Virgin’s purity, the half citrus fruit with a knife references the bitterness of the Passion, and a bunch of three cherries presents the traditional fruit of paradise.

The Attribution and Date: Over thirty versions of the Holy Family are attributed to Joos van Cleve and his workshop (Leeflang 2015, pp. 165–67). This copy, although substantially based on Joos’s designs, is not as skilled as the work of the master, as can be recognized in The Met’s earlier and quite splendid Holy Family of around 1512–13 (32.100.57) or the Virgin and Child of around 1525 (1982.60.47). The Child appears to float above his mother’s lap, the facial expressions are somewhat vague, and the modeling of the forms lacks Joos’s characteristic subtlety (due also in part to the abraded condition of the painting).

Joos’s Holy Family images became very popular, and this led to the production of numerous workshop copies. His workshop assistants used design transfer techniques, such as pouncing, to streamline production, thereby maximizing the output that could be sold on the open market. In this Holy Family, painted by a member of Joos’s workshop, examination with infrared reflectography has revealed an underdrawing with extensive pouncing (see fig. 1 above). Nothing was left up to the creativity of the painter, as every detail was transferred and carefully followed in paint—that is, except for the lilies that were not pounced for transfer, and the cherries that also appear to have been added in paint alone. The pose of the Virgin’s left hand suggests that the original idea was to place a pink in her fingers rather than the bunch of cherries (see Technical Notes).

The workshop probably had several model drawings from which variations of this theme could be made. Leeflang (2015, pp. 165–67) proposes four different groupings of these compositions based on the pose of the Christ Child. Among the closest to The Met’s painting are two other workshop paintings of the Holy Family in the Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 3) and the National Gallery, London (fig. 4), both of the mid-1520s (see Wolff 2008, pp. 167–71, and Campbell 2014, pp. 222–33). Infrared reflectography has revealed that the London Christ was originally in a seated pose, like the model for the Met Christ, and that his posture was changed during the painting process to a standing figure.[3] There are some additional differences between the two: the position of the Virgin’s left hand, and the drawing of the lilies in the vase. Another workshop copy related in part to the London prototype, which includes the standing Christ, can be found in the Lehman collection at The Met ( 1975.1.117).

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2020

[1] Marjory Bolger Foster, “The Iconography of Saint Joseph in Netherlandish Art 1400–1500,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Kansas, 1978, pp. 60–63.
[2] Guy-M. Bertrand, “La ‘Summa de donis Sancti Josephi’ de Isidore de Isolanis, O.P.,” Cahiers de Joséphologie 8, no. 2 (1960), pp. 219–49. See also Hand 2004, pp. 54–56.
[3] See Campbell 2014, pp. 224–25 and figs. 1, 2.

Support: The support was constructed from two planks of oak, with the grain oriented vertically. The planks were originally held in place by three dowels, as can be seen in the x-radiograph (see fig. 2 above). Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1506 with a more plausible date of 1512 onwards.[1] The oak originated in the Baltic/Polish region. The original panel has been thinned to 3 mm (1/8 inch), adhered to a secondary wood support 5mm thick (3/16 inch) and cradled. The presence of a barbe and unpainted wood margins around all edges indicate that the original dimensions are preserved and that the panel was prepared with an engaged frame in place.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a white ground. Examination with infrared reflectography revealed a pounced underdrawing, further worked up with drawn lines (fig. 1).[2] The design was transferred meticulously; nearly all important contours were included in the pouncing as well as small details such as the rims of Joseph’s eyeglasses, the folds of skin in the Child’s chest and right thigh, and even the Virgin’s fingernails. The artist then linked up many of the dots using a dry material, and added a few zones of hatching, for example, above the Virgin’s proper left eye and in the shadows of her drapery. The artist also appears to have added a few lines freehand, see the drawing for the Virgin’s left ear and hair and the Child’s hair. The Virgin’s left hand and the cherries are the only important elements that do not have pouncing or underdrawn lines visible in the reflectogram.

Paint Layers: The painting was executed with care, in a high quality workshop imitation of Joos van Cleve’s technique; however, its appearance is somewhat compromised by condition issues. The painting has suffered some abrasion overall, most notably in the warm brown glazes that the artist used to model the fleshtones, as in the shading beneath the Child’s right knee and in much of Joseph’s face and neck. There are many small damages in the Virgin’s face, particularly in her forehead and around her eyes. These were reintegrated with retouching that is often unnecessarily broad and so detracts from the subtlety of the original modeling, giving the fleshtones a flat appearance. The Child’s hands were also damaged and heavily retouched. In addition to the abrasion, the fleshtones have become more translucent, as is typical of aged oil paint, to the point that the bold underdrawing is visible at contours as light grey lines. The presence of these lines gives the figures an unnaturally graphic and hard appearance.

Some of the better-preserved passages reveal the artist’s skill. For example, when painting the Virgin’s hands, the artist gave a convincing sense of flesh pulled over bone. The divots in the stone parapet were deftly created, with strokes of wet-in-wet paint applied with a thick brush.

There is one significant change in the picture: the position of the Virgin’s left hand. The hand was originally painted lower—as can be seen in the infrared reflectogram and x-radiograph—and was shifted upward during the course of painting, with her thumb painted over the deep blue of the robe, now somewhat visible as a pentiment. It is not clear whether the hand was also repositioned or simply shifted upward. A few lines evident in the reflectogram may be related to an earlier position and it is possible that pouncing was brushed off when the change was made.

The slight awkwardness with which the Virgin holds the cherries makes sense when compared to another version of the Holy Family by Joos van Cleve’s workshop in the Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 3). In this very similar composition the pose of the hand is nearly identical, but she holds a pink between forefinger and thumb—surely what the hand was originally intended to hold, and adapted to the cherries in The Met's version.

Sophie Scully 2020

[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, report dated May 12, 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 1495. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year1504, more plausible is a felling date between 1508..1510….1514 + x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1506 upwards. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and a minimum of 2 years for seasoning a creation is plausible from 1512 upwards.”
[2] Infrared reflectography was acquired with an OSIRIS InGaAs near-infrared camera fitted with a 6-element, 150mm focal length f/5.6–f/45 lens; 900-1700nm spectral response, December 2018.

George Blumenthal, New York (by 1916–d. 1941; cat., vol. 1, 1926, pl. 49)

Louisville. Speed Art Museum. "Old Masters from the Metropolitan," December 1, 1948–January 23, 1949, no catalogue.

Madison. Memorial Union Gallery, University of Wisconsin. "Old Masters from the Metropolitan," February 15–March 30, 1949, unnumbered cat.

Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center. "Old Masters from the Metropolitan," April 24–June 30, 1949, no catalogue.

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. 62.

Stella Rubenstein. "Two Pictures by Joos van Cleve (Master of the Death of the Virgin)." Art in America 4, no. 4 (October, 1916), pp. 350–51, fig. 1, as by Joos van Cleve; discusses it with numerous replicas.

Martin Conway. The Van Eycks and Their Followers. London, 1921, p. 407, as one of two types of Virgin and Child compositions by Joos that are widely copied and disseminated.

Ludwig von Baldass. Joos van Cleve, der Meister des Todes Mariä. Vienna, 1925, p. 35, no. 107, lists it among works ascribed to Joos by other writers, but not known to the author.

Stella Rubinstein-Bloch. Catalogue of the Collection of George and Florence Blumenthal. Vol. 1, Paintings—Early Schools. Paris, 1926, unpaginated, pl. 49.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 9, Joos van Cleve, Jan Provost, Joachim Patenier. Berlin, 1931, pp. 39–40, 138, no. 66m, calls it possibly an original by Joos van Cleve; lists it among replicas of the example in the National Gallery, London.

Martin Davies. National Gallery Catalogues: Early Netherlandish School. London, 1945, p. 67, mentions it among versions of the painting in London and notes that it is reminiscent of that work's original design, known through pentimenti; observes that the type of Virgin's head reappears frequently in paintings of the Virgin in prayer and suggests that her extended left hand derives from Leonardo; believes that Joseph's straw hat may be taken from "some Flight into Egypt, where it is more proper" and calls the cut lemon an indication of the true subject, the weaning of Christ.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, p. 135, as a replica of Joos's Holy Family in the National Gallery, London; suggest that it is somewhat later in date than our other Joos Holy Family (32.100.57).

Erwin Panofsky. Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character. Cambridge, Mass., 1953, vol. 1, p. 354; vol. 2, pl. 333, fig. 495, discusses it as an example of the Master of the Death of the Virgin's (Joos van Cleve's) adaptation of old inventions of the Netherlandish tradition to new uses, merging them with Italian elements; notes that the artist retains here elements from the Flémalle Master's Frankfurt Madonna (Städelsches Kunstinstitut): the picturesque kerchief, the nursing motif and the gesture of the Infant Christ who embraces the Virgin's breast with both hands; notes that the Virgin's left hand is foreshortened in a Leonardesque manner.

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 54.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 9, part 1, Joos van Cleve, Jan Provost, Joachim Patenier. New York, 1972, p. 65, no. 66m, pl. 85.

Elga Lanc. "Die religiösen Bilder des Joos van Cleve." PhD diss., Universität Wien, 1972, p. 47 n. 2, fig. 48.

John Oliver Hand. "Joos van Cleve: The Early and Mature Works." PhD diss., Princeton University, 1978, pp. 159–60, 203–5, 273–75 nn. 36, 40, compares our painting with the version in London; suggests that Joos created an image out of quotations from Jan van Eyck and Rogier van der Weyden "not only because of a spirit of archaism but also because of the dearth of representations of this theme"; comments on the symbolic significance of the still life motifs.

Norbert Schneider. "Wirtschafts- und sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte des Früchtestillebens." Stilleben in Europa. Ed. Gerhard Langemeyer and Hans-Albert Peters. Exh. cat., Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte. 1979, p. 267, ill.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Underdrawings in Paintings by Joos van Cleve at the Metropolitan Museum of Art." Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Ed. Roger van Schoute and Dominique Hollanders-Favart. Colloque 4, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1982, pp. 161, 164–67 nn. 12–14, pls. 84–85 (overall and infrared reflectogram assembly), notes that the design was pounced in its entiety, adding evidence for the belief that it is a workshop piece; compares it with Joos's Holy Family in London and suggests that both paintings rely on another composition, now lost.

Mark L. Evans. "An Early Altar–piece by Joos van Cleve." Burlington Magazine 124 (October, 1982), p. 623 n. 8.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 269, 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. 37, 250–52, 325, no. 62, ill. (color), ascribes it to the workshop of Joos van Cleve and dates it about 1515.

Old Master Paintings. Sotheby's, New York. November 2, 2000, p. 16, compares our picture to a Holy Family by a "Follower of Joos van Cleve" (lot no. 11).

John Oliver Hand. Joos van Cleve: The Complete Paintings. New Haven, 2004, p. 134, no. 33.10, as "workshop of Joos".

Martha Wolff in Northern European and Spanish Paintings before 1600 in the Art Institute of Chicago. Ed. Martha Wolff. New Haven, 2008, pp. 169–70 nn. 7–8, fig. 1.

Micha Leeflang in Joos van Cleve, Leonardo des Nordens. Ed. Peter van den Brink et al. Exh. cat., Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen. Stuttgart, 2011, pp. 148, 153, fig. 127 (color).

Norbert Schneider. Von Bosch zu Bruegel: Niederländische Malerei im Zeitalter von Humanismus und Reformation. Berlin, 2015, p. 251.

Micha Leeflang. Joos van Cleve: A Sixteenth-Century Antwerp Artist and His Workshop. Turnhout, Belgium, 2015, pp. 72–73, 167, 169, 184–85, fig. 4.2 (color).