Head of a Donor

The Artist: The little that we know about Albert van Ouwater is due to Karel van Mander’s Schilder-Boek. For Van Mander, a Haarlem resident who established a painting academy there in 1587, Albert van Ouwater was a pupil of Jan van Eyck.[1] Considered the founder of the Dutch school of painting, his successors were thought to be Geertgen tot Sint Jans (Ouwater’s pupil), Dieric Bouts, and Jan Mostaert [2]. Van Mander may also be credited with identifying the only surviving work by Ouwater, namely the Raising of Lazarus, which ultimately was acquired by the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin.[3]

However, there is no archival trace of Albert van Ouwater in Haarlem.[4] Nevertheless, works by other Haarlem masters clearly reflect Ouwater’s Raising of Lazarus, which must have been made for a site in that town. As Stephan Kemperdick has pointed out, a Raising of Lazarus in a Haarlem Book of Hours of about 1470–80 (private collection) by the so-called Jason Master assimilated several motifs from Ouwater’s panel painting, namely, the figures of Lazarus, Mary Magdalen, and those behind the grate in the background.[5] Furthermore, the same subject is rendered by Ouwater’s pupil, Geertgen tot Sint Jans, in a painting of about 1480–90 (Musée du Louvre, Paris) set out of doors but with several references to the Berlin panel.[6] This all suggests that Ouwater was indeed working in Haarlem around the 1460s and 1470s.

Although nothing is documented about Ouwater’s origins and training, his name indicates that he probably came from the town of Oudewater. A strong case has been made for the likelihood that Ouwater spent time in the southern Netherlands and quite possibly trained with another artist from Haarlem, namely Diereic Bouts, when the latter was already settled in Leuven by 1448, working there until his death in 1475.[7] Kemperdick cited in particular Ouwater’s likely familiarity with Jan van Eyck’s Madonna of Canon van der Paele of 1436 (Groeningemuseum, Bruges) and Rogier van der Weyden’s Exhumation of Saint Hubert of about 1437–40 (National Gallery, London) for the architecture and setting of the Raising of Lazarus. Furthermore, he noted specific comparisons between figures in the Raising of Lazarus with those in Dieric Bouts’s Erasmus Triptych in the Collegiate Church of Sint-Peter in Leuven from the 1460s, a comparison supported by Weniger who noted similarities in both in the painting technique of brocade garments.[8] Indeed, there is a high probability that several of the paintings traditionally attributed to Bouts are closer to Ouwater’s style and technique in the Raising of Lazarus; in addition to the Erasmus Triptych, these include the Marian Triptych of about 1452–60 (Museo del Prado, Madrid), and perhaps the Descent from the Cross Triptych of about 1450–58 in the Capilla Real in Granada.[9] These observations concur with Friedländer’s original assumption that Ouwater was a close follower of Bouts.[10] Perhaps the most likely scenario is that Ouwater worked in Bouts’s studio for an unknown period of time, only leaving for Haarlem around the mid-to-late 1460s.

The Painting: This tightly cropped portrait of an elderly cleric wearing a fur-trimmed blue cassock and pleated surplice is a fragment cut from a larger composition, possibly the left side of a single panel or the left wing of a diptych or triptych. The man was presumably a kneeling donor figure within a devotional scene, for the hand of his patron saint and portions of a red garment can be seen at the upper left of the fragment. The saint may have been John the Baptist, who often is represented wearing a red robe. The triangular green form at the lower right may be remnants of the garment of another figure.

There are two engraved copies of this fragment, both of which show the figure in reverse, omit the patron saint, and are identified as representations of Saint Thomas of Canterbury (Thomas Becket, 1118–1170). The version by Wenceslaus Hollar (1607–1677), dated to 1647, shows the subject with praying hands and the sword of his execution thrust into his head (see fig. 1 above). It was engraved when the painting was in the collection of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Norfolk (d. 1646) and his widow, Lady Alatheia Talbot, Countess of Arundel (d. 1654). The other print, by Lucas Vorsterman (1595–1675), lacks the sword and the praying hands, but also is identified as St. Thomas of Canterbury. It is likely that the patron saint was painted over at one point to give this fragment the appearance of an independent portrait. In his notes on the collection of Charles Howard at Soho Square (1742), the eighteenth-century author and engraver George Vertue (1684–1756) does not mention the hand of the saint in his description of the painting, which may at that time still have been overpainted. However, when Sir George Scharf discussed it in Artistic and Descriptive Notes of the Most Remarkable Pictures in the British Institution. Exhibition of the Ancient Masters in 1858, the overpaint must have been removed, for the hand of the patron saint touching the man’s head is noted.

The Attribution and Date: As was the case with another remarkable portrait fragment in The Met collections, a Donor Presented by a Saint (The Met, 32.100.41), this painting was initially attributed to Jan van Eyck when it was listed in the 1655 inventory of the Arundel collection. That attribution persisted into the early twentieth century (Kaemmerer 1898, Weale 1904, 1908, 1910, 1912, Durand-Gréville 1906-07, Lambotte 1906). Friedländer (1906) was the first to reject the attribution to Van Eyck, later in 1925 suggesting Aelbert van Ouwater instead, by comparing it to the artist’s only documented work, the Raising of Lazarus of about 1465–70 (Gemäldegalerie, Berlin; fig. 2). This attribution has been widely accepted (see References), with only a few notable exceptions (Eisler “only remotely plausible” 1960, and Campbell 1981).

More recently, the works of the early Dutch masters have been reconsidered through various monographs, exhibitions, and the technical examination of selected paintings.[11] Especially helpful for The Met’s painting has been the technical study of the Berlin Raising of Lazarus.[12] Thus, it has been possible to compare details of painting technique and handling between The Met fragment and the Berlin painting. Infrared reflectography of The Met’s portrait reveals some underdrawing in the facial features and demonstrates that the entire head was shifted slightly to the left and tilted upward in the painted layers (see Technical Notes). Such minimal shifts are also evident in the figures of the Raising of Lazarus.[13]

Moreover, with the use of high-resolution images of the paint surfaces of the two works, it has become manifestly clear that The Met’s fragment is by Ouwater. As has been noted previously, but often with some reservations (see References), The Met’s portrait is especially close in style to the head of Saint Peter in the Berlin painting (fig. 3). In both, the artist has paid particular attention to the aged qualities of the donor’s skin, in the radiating wrinkles around his proper right eye and the furrows of his brow that are depicted with a certain graphic exaggeration, as if etched into the flesh. The set gazes of the men, seemingly mesmerized by figures or actions taking place at their left, is depicted in the same manner in both faces. Almond-shaped eye sockets, pink-rimmed at their lower edges, barely contain the bulging eyes. The catchlights in each man’s eyes are in the same exact position at the upper left of the iris, while the lower part of the iris appears translucent. The ears are constructed in precisely the same way. The Met portrait’s physiognomy is even more individualized than that of Saint Peter, who is a standardized and idealized type. Although the addition of other works to the oeuvre of Albert van Ouwater remains highly debatable (see Châtelet 1981), at least The Met fragment joins the Raising of Lazarus as the two benchmarks of the artist’s works. The close relationship between the two suggests a similar date of about 1465–70.

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2023

[1] Karel van Mander, Het Schilder-boek, Haarlem, 1604, critical edition by H. Miedema, Karel van Mander. The lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters, Doornspijk, 1994, vol. 1, fol. 205v., p. 80; vol. 2, p. 260.
[2] Van Mander 1604/Miedema 1994, vol. 1, fol. 205v., pp. 80f; vol. 2, 1995, p. 260; see also Friedländer 1967, pp. 34 –37; Châtelet 1981, pp. 63 –74; Catheline Périer-d’Ieteren, Dieric Bouts, Brussels, 2006, pp. 27 –31; Friso Lammertse in Friso Lammertse and Jeroen Giltaij, eds., exh. cat., Schilderkunst van de late Middeleeuwen, Voege Hollanders, exh, cat., Museum Boymans van Beuningen, Rotterdam, 2008, pp. 63–66 (with references to previous literature).
[3] For the provenance and further information, see Katrin Dyballa in Katrin Dyballa and Stephan Kemperdick, Niederländische und französische Malerei 1400 –1480. Wissenschaftlicher Bestandskatalog der Gemäldegalerie SMB, Petersberg 2023, no. 38.
[4] See Châtelet (1960, p. 65, fig. 1, p. 73) for bringing to light the mis-transcription by Adriaam van der Willingen of a document thought to be related to Ouwater in Haarlem.
[5] Stephan Kemperdick, “Albert van Ouwater: The Raising of Lazarus,” Oud Holland 123, no. 3/4 (2010), p. 238.
[6] Kemperdick 2010, p. 239; see also Katrin Dyballa 2023, no. 38.
[7] M. J. Friedländer, Die altniederlädische Malerei, vol. 3, Berlin, 1925, p. 57; see especially Kemperdick 2010, p. 246ff.; Matthias Weniger, “Überwunden, unverantwortlich? Fragen zur Eigenhändigkeit bei Bouts und Ouwater,“ in Bouts Studies, Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Leuven, 26 –28 November 1998), Leuven/Paris/Sterling, 2001, pp. 223 –42.
[8] Kemperdick 2010, pp. 246 –47; Weniger 2001, pp. 227 –28.
[9] Stephan Kemperdick, “Aelbert van Ouwaters ‘Aufweckung des Lazarus‘ und der Dirk Bouts zugeschriebene ‘Marienaltar‘ des Prado,“ in Bouts Studies (note 7), pp. 72 –87; Kemperdick 2010, p. 248.
[10] Friedländer 1925, p. 57.
[11] See Châtelet 1981 and Lammertse 2008.
[12] I am most grateful to Stephan Kemperdick and Katrin Dyballa for sharing details of their study of Albert van Ouwater’s Raising of Lazarus for their forthcoming catalogue. See Katrin Dyballa in 2023, no. 38.
[13] Information kindly shared by Katrin Dyballa and Stephan Kemperdick.

Support: This painting on oak panel is a fragment cut from a larger painting; no original edges remain. The painted composition suggests that it was substantially larger, formerly. The hand that touches the man’s head most likely belonged to a standing saint, signaling that the man was the donor, presented kneeling. The segment of bright green paint to the right of the donor does not appear to be related to either the donor or the saint but seems to be located between them in space. The slight curve suggests that it belongs to another figure, either a fold of drapery or dress that jutted behind the donor but in front of the saint, or possibly, the slope of another kneeling figure’s shoulder. Above the green segment lies a dark brown painted region, which on close examination has wavy vertical lines that seemingly describe wood graining. The wood could be a clue to setting or be part of a larger object positioned behind the donor figure.

The small fragment spans only one board of wood, although it is quite possible that the original panel was constructed from more than one board. The wood grain is oriented vertically, suggesting that the overall orientation of the panel was vertical as well. The wood is 5 mm thick on average and the original back may be preserved. The panel is too small to carry out dendrochronology.[1]

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a whitish ground, likely containing chalk. Examination with infrared reflectography revealed the presence of an underdrawing, executed using a liquid medium.[2] The underdrawn lines are rather faint in the reflectogram but are readily apparent where the composition was substantially altered, as in the man’s right ear and eye (see fig. 4 above). The underdrawn eye was positioned further to the right and tilted slightly downward compared to the final painting, while the ear was underdrawn level with the eye. Together these changes suggest a different tilt to the man’s head and a possible downward angle of his gaze initially. Elsewhere the seemingly dilute underdrawing is more difficult to distinguish from the paint layers, but it does appear that all of the contours of the man’s head as well as the fingers of the figure behind him were planned in the underdrawing.

Paint Layers: This portrayal of the donor gives the sense of a unique individual, with his particular distribution of winkles and other marks of age, yet it also has an exaggerated quality that seems to stem in part from the artist’s technique (see Catalogue Entry as well).

On close observation, the wrinkles in the skin have an unrealistic three-dimensionality, as if molded in clay rather than actual flesh. There are even wrinkles in the mouth. The artist achieved this effect by introducing bold contrasts of bright highlights alongside deep greys in the creases. The transitions from light to dark areas are often smoothly blended but occasionally discrete brushstrokes, akin to hatchmarks, are apparent, as around the eye cavity. There is a marked complexity in the buildup for the eyes but, as with the wrinkled flesh, the lack of subtlety limits the naturalistic effect.

The fleshtones have a rather opaque appearance in general, the result of a generous use of lead white throughout the flesh. This broad distribution of lead white, as opposed to restricting its use to highlights, is also reflected in the x-radiograph (fig. 5). The artist used a small amount of grey for shading throughout the face as well, but most abundantly in the deep wrinkles.

In general, the artist paid much attention to tiny details, such as the stubble of the beard or the individual hairs of the fur at the collar, but the details were not rendered with great sensitivity. The schematic handling becomes clear when this portrait is compared with the similarly sized fragment by Dieric Bouts, A Donor Presented by a Saint (The Met, 32.100.41), in which a comparable fur-trimmed robe was painted with great care and complexity, as opposed to the simplified approach in this painting, with dark brown hairs simply poking out of the dark yellow fur collar. Overall, this portrait would likely have read far better from a distance, as would be fitting as part of a substantially larger painting.

The painting is well preserved. There are a few scattered losses and some minor abrasion, mainly at the edges of the cracks. There is some opaque brown retouching at the upper right of the composition that somewhat impacts the illusion of the painted wood grain.

Sophie Scully 2023

Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Norfolk, London (until d. 1646); his widow, Lady Alatheia Talbot, Countess of Arundel, Amsterdam (1646–d. 1654; posthumous inventory, April 10, 1655 as "un ritrato de homo in profill, disegno de Jan van Eyck"); by descent to Henry Thomas Howard-Molyneux-Howard, Greystoke Castle, Penrith, Cumberland (until d. 1824); Henry Howard, Greystoke Castle (by 1858–d. 1875); Henry Charles Howard, Greystoke Castle (until 1909); J. Pierpont Morgan, New York (1909–d. 1913; his estate, 1913–17)

London. British Institution. "Exhibition of the Ancient Masters," 1858, no. 125 (as "Head of a Priest" by Van Eyck [but see Scharf 1858]; lent by Henry Howard, Esq., of Greystoke).

Art Gallery of the Corporation of London. "Early Flemish Painters," 1906, no. 6 (as "Portrait of a Donor" by Jan van Eyck, lent by H. C. Howard, Esq.).

Poughkeepsie. Vassar College Art Gallery. "Humanism North and South," February 29–March 18, 1956, 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. 25 (as "Attributed to Aelbert van Ouwater").

Inventory of Pictures, etc. in Possession of Alethea, Countess of Arundel, at the Time of Her Death in Amsterdam in 1654. April 10, 1655 [published by Lionel Cust, Notes on the Collections formed by Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, K. G., in Burlington Magazine, vol. 19, April–September 1911, see p. 284], lists "Un ritrato de homo in profill, disegno de Jan van Eyck" [presumably this portrait].

George Vertue. Notebook entry. 1742 [published in "Vertue Note Books Volume V" in Walpole Society, vol. 26, (1937–38), p. 31], mentioned as "a head small om board painted in oyl — like the print doen by Hollar. of S. Tho. Becket" in notes on Charles Howard's collection at Soho Square.

Sir George Scharf. Artistic and Descriptive Notes on the Most Remarkable Pictures in the British Institution Exhibition of the Ancient Masters. Exh. cat., London British Institution. London, 1858, pp. 32–33, no. 125, rejects the catalogues formal attribution of this portrait to "Van Eyck" and suggests instead that it "may possibly be assigned to one of their followers, Justus of Ghent"; believes it depicts a kneeling donor and the hand touching his head belongs to his patron saint; notes that there are two engravings of this portrait in reverse in which the sitter is identified as Thomas-à-Becket, martyr of Canterbury: the Hollar engraving, dated 1647, includes a sword wedged in the head, Thomas's emblem, and is inscribed "Secundum Originale. Joh. ab Eyck ex coll. Arundel"; the engraving by Vostermann has no sword but is inscribed "Effigies S. Thomæ Cantua. Archiepi. Mart.".

Ludwig Kaemmerer. Hubert und Jan van Eyck. Bielefeld, 1898, p. 56, fig. 39 (Hollar engraving), considers Hollar's engraving the record of a lost painting representing Thomas à Becket which its owner, the Earl Arundel, believed to be a work of Jan van Eyck.

W. H. James Weale. "Paintings by John van Eyck and Albert Dürer formerly in the Arundel Collection." Burlington Magazine 6 (December 1904), pp. 248–49, pl. 5 (this portrait and the Hollar engraving), considers it part of a dexter shutter of a triptych by Jan van Eyck; considers it a portrait of a donor, a canon, not Becket; comments on differences between the Hollar engraving and the painting.

Emile Durand-Gréville. "Les primitifs flamands a l'exposition de Guildhall." Les arts anciens de flandre 2 (1906–7), p. 63, attributes it to a pupil of Jan van Eyck.

Paul Lambotte. "Expositions des peintres flamands & belges a Londres (Guildhall)." L'art flamand & hollandais 3 (July–December 1906), p. 56.

[Max J.] Friedländer. "Die Leihausstellung in der Guildhall zu London.—Sommer 1906.—Hauptsächlich niederländische Bilder des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts." Burlington Magazine 29 (1906), p. 574, rejects the attribution to Jan van Eyck.

W. H. James Weale. Hubert and John van Eyck, their Life and Work. London, 1908, pp. 171–72, no. 36, ill. opp. p. 170 (this portrait and Hollar engraving), lists it as "Portrait of an Ecclesiastic," then in the H. C. Howard collection at Greystoke Castle; calls it a fragment of a large panel picture or of the dexter shutter of a triptych.

W. H. James Weale. "Notes on Some Portraits of the Early Netherlandish School." Burlington Magazine 17 (June 1910), p. 177, identifies this portrait with an entry in the Arundel inventory of 1655 [see Ref. 1655].

W. H. James Weale and Maurice W. Brockwell. The Van Eycks and their Art. London, 1912, pp. 184–85, no. 46.

"The Pierpont Morgan Gift." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 13 (January 1918), p. 16, as "Thomas à Becket" by Jan van Eyck.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 1, Die Van Eyck, Petrus Christus. Berlin, 1924, p. 165, describes it as pedantically mannered after Van Eyck.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 3, Dierick Bouts und Joos van Gent. Berlin, 1925, pp. 61, 112, no. 35, pl. 47, attributes our painting to Aelbert van Ouwater, comparing it with his Raising of Lazarus (Staatliche Museen, Berlin).

Franz Dülberg. Niederländische Malerei der Spätgotik und Renaissance. Potsdam, 1929, p. 76.

[Hippolyte] Fierens-Gevaert and Paul Fierens. Histoire de la peinture flamande des origines à la fin du XVe siècle. Vol. 3, La maturité de l'art flamand. Paris, 1929, p. 12, as an authentic work by Ouwater.

Kurt Steinbart in Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler. Ed. Hans Vollmer. Vol. 26, Leipzig, 1932, p. 102.

G. J. Hoogewerff. De noord-nederlandsche schilderkunst. Vol. 2, The Hague, 1937, p. 67, accepts Friedländer's [Ref. 1925] attribution to Ouwater.

Wolfgang Schöne. Dieric Bouts und seine Schule. Berlin, 1938, p. 23, alludes to it as one of the two extant works by Ouwater.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 50–52, ill., mention that removal of overpainting has revealed the hand of a patron saint resting on the donor's head.

Erwin Panofsky. Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character. Cambridge, Mass., 1953, vol. 1, pp. 321, 494 n. 3 (to p. 321), calls it the only other possible work by Ouwater aside from his Raising of Lazarus in Berlin.

Klára Garas. "Some Problems of Early Dutch and Flemish Painting." Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 1, no. 3–4 (1954), p. 251.

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 74.

Max J. Friedländer. Early Netherlandish Painting: From van Eyck to Bruegel. Ed. F. Grossmann. English ed. [first ed. 1916]. New York, 1956, p. 28 n. 1.

Albert Châtelet. "Albert van Ouwater." Gazette des beaux-arts, 6th ser., 55 (February 1960), pp. 66–67, 78, n. 4, finds the attribution to Ouwater very convincing, comparing this portrait to Saint Peter in the Berlin Raising of Lazarus.

James E. Snyder. "The Early Haarlem School of Painting, I. Ouwater and the Master of the Tiburtine Sibyl." Art Bulletin 42 (1960), p. 44, fig. 7, believes this fragment "may well be by the hand of the Master [Ouwater]".

Colin Eisler. "Erik Larsen, Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York, 1960." Art Bulletin 46 (March 1964), p. 101, calls it the "only remotely plausible addition to the oeuvre of Aelbert van Ouwater".

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 1, The van Eycks—Petrus Christus. New York, 1967, pp. 93, 110 n. 71, pl. 97c.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 3, Dieric Bouts and Joos van Gent. New York, 1968, pp. 36, 64, no. 35.

Charles Sterling. Letter. February 20, 1971, would call it "Attributed to A. v. Ouwater".

Lorne Campbell. Unpublished text for MMA Bulletin. 1981, suggests that the panel was cut to its present size in the early 17th century; notes that it is uncertain if the knife and praying hands in Hollar's engraving after this portrait were the engraver's inventions or if the painted fragment showed these additions when the print was made.

Albert Châtelet. Early Dutch Painting: Painting in the Northern Netherlands in the Fifteenth Century. English ed. [French ed. 1980]. New York, 1981, pp. 70, 209–10, pl. 58, comments that "it goes without saying that such a small fragment is hard to ascribe conclusively," but lists it with the works of Ouwater.

Richard Pennington. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar 1607–77. Cambridge, 1982, p. 235, no. 1370, lists an etching of Thomas à Becket made by Wenceslaus Hollar in 1647; based on differences between the MMA portrait and the print, speculates that Arundel's collection contained another oil painting corresponding to the print which "may not be the van Eyck that passed to J.P. Morgan".

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

James Snyder in The Dictionary of Art. Ed. Jane Turner. Vol. 23, New York, 1996, p. 673.

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. 156, 158–59, no. 25, ill. (color), as "Attributed to Aelbert van Ouwater," about 1460; notes that the hand and the background elements were overpainted most likely between 1647, the year of Hollar's print, and 1905, when, illustrated in Weale, the drapery and hand of patron saint were visible again.