Virgin and Child

The Artist: For a biography of Hans Memling, see (17.190.7)

The Painting: The Virgin and Child are set against a landscape background with rolling green hills, a small pond, two receding pathways and a dense grove of trees. The figures, framed by a rounded arch, are placed behind a parapet decorated with a colorful patterned carpet. The Christ Child, lovingly supported by his mother, holds a small unidentifiable blue flower in his left hand and gazes out of the picture plane, perhaps at the donor figure(s) who may have been represented in an adjacent panel, now lost.

The picture is a composite of motifs derived from works of the same subject by the Bruges-based painter Hans Memling and reflects the popularity of this theme in the Low Countries during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. A comparison of the Lehman Virgin and Child to other similar examples emphasizes the frequency with which artists repeated models in a variety of media during this period and underscores contemporary devotional tendencies. The Lehman painting is close in composition to Memling’s Virgin and Child in Lisbon (c. 1485-90, Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga) [See Comparative Image, fig. 1], which may itself have formed part of a diptych or triptych that would have included portrait(s) of the donor(s).[1] As noted by Till-Holger Borchert, the picture relates closely to an engraving by the Master FVB [See Comparative Image, fig. 2], a Netherlandish artist named from a group of works with monograms bearing the same initials.[2] Although not identical in composition – the print excludes the landscape setting of the painting – the two images share the motif of the Virgin and Child.

Attribution and Date: The Virgin and Child, attributed to Dieric Bouts around the turn of the twentieth century, was thereafter given to Hans Memling.[3] In his monograph on Memling, De Vos proposes an attribution to his so-called Master of the Bache Virgin and relates the Lehman work to two other Virgin and Child paintings at the Met, one from the Friedsam collection (32.100.58), and the other from the Bache collection (49.7.22).[4] However, as differences in their materials and technique prove, these three paintings were not painted by the same hand.[5] While each of the three pictures finds inspiration in the works of Memling, they represent artists working at different levels of remove from his workshop. It is possible to clarify the relationship between the Lehman painting and Memling’s studio by examining its composition and by analyzing its style and technique.

The Lehman painting features several compositional anomalies that mark it as the product of an artist somewhat distanced from Memling’s workshop. As noted by Martha Wolff, the painter missed an opportunity to establish a more direct connection between the viewer’s space and that of the holy pair by placing the Christ Child behind rather than resting on the carpeted parapet.[6] Furthermore, the space in which the figures exist is ambiguous; the pair sits neither under nor in front of the stone arch. The end of the Virgin’s sheer headdress drapes across her chest, attempting a transparent visual effect achieved more convincingly in examples by the Bruges master.[7] Instead of closely following a single model, the artist of the Lehman painting has recombined motifs from several different works by Memling, and, in doing so, struggled to compose a unified composition.

Much of the underdrawn design, executed in a medium with large, distinct particles, was mainly restricted to establishing contours. While Wolff suggests black chalk as the underdrawing medium, it may be that a liquid medium was used (See the Technical Notes for more information about the underdrawing).[8] Very delicate parallel hatching was applied with a brush to suggest shadow in the Virgin’s proper left cheek and temple. In style, the underdrawing of the Lehman picture does not match the features characteristic of the mature master whose mode of expression was looser, more confident and generally makes greater use of hatching to create volume as can be seen in the underdrawing of Memling’s Virgin and Child with Saints Catherine of Alexandria and Barbara (the Met, 14.40.634).

The edge of the parapet in front of the Virgin and Child was underdrawn closer to the Christ Child’s feet, indicating that the artist was grappling with how to convincingly place the figures within the illusionistic framework [See Comparative Image, fig. 3]. Adjustments like this reflect the painter’s attempts to recombine various motifs borrowed from Memling models even at this preliminary stage. Further evidence for this can be found in the paint layers; the X-radiograph [See Comparative Image, fig. 4] shows an earlier placement of the Christ Child’s proper left arm before it was moved to its current position holding the flower. This particular alteration is significant in considering the relationship between the Lehman painting and the Master FVB’s engraving. Borchert characterizes the changes made in the underdrawing and paint stages as the Lehman painter taking ‘liberties with his model’, stating that these alterations increase the likelihood that the Master FVB’s engraving and not a painted source served as the artist’s main prototype.[9] Apart from the movement of Jesus’s hand, which is indeed the most convincing piece of evidence for the hypothesis that the FVB picture was the Lehman artist’s main model, the presence of pentimenti does not provide substantive proof that the Lehman artist was looking primarily at the engraving as his source. Ultimately, as Borchert also notes, the engraving and the Lehman picture were, in all probability, based to varying degrees on an existing painting.

Dendrochronology places the creation of the work from 1473 at the earliest, which corresponds to the later years of Memling’s career.[10] However, the rather disjointed composition suggests that the painting was not produced under the master’s supervision. Instead, this picture was more probably created by an artist active in the early sixteenth century who was aware of Memling’s work and was producing images for the open market in a popular, if somewhat retardataire style.

Nenagh Hathaway, 2018

Notes

[1] The Turkish carpet in the Lehman painting does not precisely replicate the pattern of the Lisbon example, and instead is reminiscent of the carpets in Memling’s Virgin and Child Enthroned with Angels (Washington, National Gallery of Art), the central panel of the Saint John Altarpiece (Bruges, Sint-Janshospitaal), and a Virgin and Child (Granada, Capilla Real). See Ferenc Batári, "The ‘Memling’ carpets," in Dirk De Vos, ed. Hans Memling. Essays, Ghent, 1994, pp. 63-66.
[2] See Refs., Till-Holger Borchert, 2018 pp. 112-113.
[3] See Refs., Hulin de Loo, 1902, pp. 36, 58, no. 140; Friedländer, 1903, pp. 84; Eisler, 1961, pp. 63-64; Arndt, 1964, pp. 178.
[4] De Vos includes several other variants in his group of works attributable to ‘The Master of the Bache Virgin’ in Refs., De Vos, 1994, pp. 395-396.
[5] Martha Wolff describes these three works as "parallel late adaptations of Memling’s work" thus acknowledging that the paintings are by different hands. See Refs., Wolff in Sterling et al., 1998, 87.
[6] The connection between the Lisbon painting and the Lehman Virgin and Child was noted by Wolff. See Refs., Sterling et al., 1998, pp. 85-87.
[7] Further discussion of this can be found in the Technical Notes section.
[8] See Refs., Wolff in Sterling et al., 1998, p. 85.
[9] See Refs., Till-Holger Borchert, 2018, pp. 112-113. This shift in hand positioning was noted by Wolff, 1998, p. 85.
[10] See report by Dr. Peter Klein, (report dated 3/9/1987, Lehman Collection Curatorial Files) and Technical Notes.

References

Max J. Friedländer. "Die Leihausstellung der New Gallery in London, Januar – März 1900 – Hauptsächlich niederländische Gemälde des XV. Und XVI. Jahrhunderts." Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 23, 1900, pp. 245-258 (See p. 249).

George Hulin de Loo. Exposition de tableaux flamands des XVIe, XVe et XVIe siècles: Catalogue critique. Bruges, 1902, pp. 36, 58, no. 140.

Max J. Friedländer. "Die Brügger Leihausstellung von 1902." Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 26, 1903, pp. 66-91, 147-175 (See p. 84).

Karl Voll. Memling: Klassiker der Kunst. Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1909, p. 132, ill. p. 174.

[William] Martin Conway. The Van Eycks and Their Followers. London, 1921, pp. 236, 244.

Georges Huisman. Memling. Paris 1923, pp. 119, 147.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. 14 vols. Berlin and Leiden, 1924-1937, vol. 6 (1928), pp. 58, 135, no. 107.

A. C. R. Carter. "Forthcoming Sales – the Gow Pictures." Burlington Magazine 70, 1937, p. xxxiii.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch, and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 71, 74.

Colin Tobias Eisler. New England Museums. Les primitifs flamands, I: Corpus de la peinture des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle, 4. Brussels, 1961, pp. 63-64.

Karl Arndt. [Review of Eisler, 1961]. Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 27 (1964), pp. 173-181. (See p. 178).

Max J. Friedländer. Early Netherlandish Painting, Translated by Heinz Norden. Comments and notes by Nicole Veronée Verhaegen, Henri Pauwels, and S. Herzog. 14 vols. In 16. New York, 1967-1976, vol. 6a (1971), pp. 37, 59, 131, no. 107.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born in or before 1865: A Summary Catalogue, New York, 1980, p. 124, ill. p. 337.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Hans Memling as Draughtsman." Hans Memling: Essays. Ed. Dirk De Vos. Ghent, 1994, pp. 84-85.

Dirk De Vos. Hans Memling: The Complete Works. Antwerp and Ghent, 1994, p. 400, n. 12, fig. 180.

Dirk De Vos in Hans Memling: Five Centuries of Fact and Fiction. Dirk De Vos et al., Exh. Cat., 2 vols., Groeningemuseum. Bruges, 1994, no. 42.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 252, ill.

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, p. 404, ill.

Till-Holger Borchert in Hauwerts, Evelien, de Wilde, Evelien and Ludo Vandamme, eds. Colard Mansion. Incunabula, Prints and Manuscripts in Medieval Bruges, exh. cat. Bruges Groeningemuseum, 1 March to 3 June 2018, 2018, pp. 112-113, ill. p. 112.

Support: The support is a single plank of oak with the grain oriented vertically. Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1473, with a more plausible creation date of 1479 upwards. The wood originated in the Baltic/Polish region.[1] The support measures 5/16 inch (0.8cm) thick and retains its original back. The back was covered in a white ground and painted black. Broad strokes of brown, possibly a rough attempt at modelling, may not be original. Traces of a barbe around all four sides of the painted composition suggest that the panel was originally prepared in an engaged frame.

The gilded decoration around the painting, measuring 4 cm at the top and sides and 2.8 cm at the bottom, is not original. At some point after the original frame was removed the unpainted wood margins were carved to form the decorative recessed bands, gilded with what appears to be water gilding and decorated with the punched stars. This punchwork, applied with varying levels of care, is reminiscent of the frames associated with the Pugin family, the punchwork on the frame of the double-sided panel: The Dormition of the Virgin and Christ Carrying the Cross by Hans Schaufelein (MMA2011.485a,b) is very close in appearance.

Preparation:The panel was prepared with a white ground. Examination with infrared reflectography revealed that many contours were underdrawn using what appears to be a liquid material.[2] The artist may have used a quill; there are a few instances where there are two sets of parallel lines, characteristic of a split nib. Chunky particles are evident in some of the lines, which could be interpreted as a dry medium in a lower resolution image, but may be larger pigment particles that were not well dispersed in the liquid medium.

Study of the underdrawing reveals that the artist worked out his composition on the panel and made several adjustments during the underdrawing process. He initially positioned the Child’s right thigh and the Virgin’s supporting left hand higher, in accordance with a higher horizontal line for the ledge before them, and then shifted everything downwards. He also experimented with different positions of the Child’s right arm; there are lines that situated it closer to his torso and with a more bent elbow. The earlier iterations of these elements in the composition all seem to contain the larger particles in the liquid medium, while the corrections are executed with a liquid medium that does not have apparent particles, suggesting the artist revisited the composition using a slightly different medium.

Paint layers: The painting is consistent with late fifteenth-century technique, but the paint handling reveals a less developed understanding of light and materials when compared to paintings by Memling. The artist has used lead white to create highlights in the faces, followed by glazes to create midtones and shadows. But his depiction of fabrics is less convincing. For example, he has attempted to render the white cloth tucked into as a sheer fabric by painting opaque mixtures of the underlying colors, the blue, yellow and red of the Virgin’s robe, on top of the white folds. This works from a distance but is less convincing than using glazes of white, as Memling has done elsewhere, for example in the sheer veil in Virgin and Child with Saints Catherine of Alexandria and Barbara (MMA14.40.634). Additionally, the fur cuff betrays a lack of material understanding: the black lines that should indicate the fold of the cuff are perfunctory and do not make sense. The artist has used hatches of what appears to be a red lake to create shadow in the Virgin’s red mantle.

The painting is in generally good condition, but the paint layers have suffered some abrasion, particularly along the vertical cracks that are associated with the grain of the wood support. There is a good deal of retouching that has sought to remedy the abrasion and integrate losses around cracks.

Gilding: The rays emanating from the heads of both figures were created with what appears to have been mordant gilding. The golden rays around the Child are largely abraded.

Sophie Scully 2017


[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, 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 1462. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1471, more plausible is a felling date between 1475..1477….1481 +x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1473 upwards. 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 1479 upwards.
[2] Infrared reflectography completed with an OSIRIS InGaAs near-infrared camera with a 6-element, 150mm focal length f/5.6–f/45 lens; 900-1700nm spectral response.

Thomas George Baring, first earl of Northbrook (d. 1904), by 1899; his son, Francis George Baring, second earl of Northbrook (d. 1929); Leonard Gow, Camis Eskan, Dumbartonshire; his sale, Christie's, London, 28 May 1937, lot 82.

A. C. R. Carter. "Forthcoming Sales – the Gow Pictures." The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 70, p. xxxiii .

Karl Arndt. "Review of Eisler, 1961." Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 27, p. 178.

Evelien Hauwaerts. Colard Mansion. Incunabula, Prints and Manuscripts in Medieval Bruges. Exh. cat., Groeninge Museum. Bruges, , pp. 112-113, ill. p. 112 .

[Max J.] Friedländer. "Die Leihausstellung der New Gallery in London, Januar–März 1900.—Hauptsächlich niederländische Gemälde des XV. und XVI. Jahrhunderts." Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 23 (1900), p. 249.

Georges H. de Loo Palais du Gouvernement, Bruges. Exposition de tableaux flamands des XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles: catalogue critique précédé d'une introduction sur l'identité de certains maîtres anonymes. Ghent, 1902, pp. 36, 58, no. 140.

Max J. Friedländer. "Die Brügger Leihausstellung von 1902." Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 26 (1903), p. 84.

Karl Voll. Memling: Des Meisters Gemälde. Stuttgart, 1909, p. 132, ill. p. 174 .

Martin Conway. The Van Eycks and Their Followers. London, 1921, pp. 236, 244 .

Georges Huisman. Memlinc. Paris, 1923, pp. 119, 147 .

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 6, Memling und Gerard David. Berlin, 1928, pp. 58, 135, no. 107.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 71, 74 .

Colin Tobias Eisler. "New England Museums." New England Museums [Les primitifs flamands, I: Corpus de la peinture des anciens pays-bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle, vol. 4]. Brussels, 1961, pp. 63-64.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 6, Hans Memlinc and Gerard David. New York, 1971, part 2, pp. 37, 59, 131, no. 107 .

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born in or before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1980, p. 124, ill. p. 337 .

Dirk De Vos. Hans Memling: The Complete Works. Ghent, 1994, p. 400, n. 12, fig. 180 .

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Hans Memling as a Draughtsman." Hans Memling: Essays. Ed. Dirk De Vos. Ghent, 1994, pp. 84-85 .

Dirk De Vos. Hans Memling: Catalogue. Exh. cat., Groeninge Museum, Bruges. Ghent, 1994, no. 42 .

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 252, 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, p. 404, ill.