Skip to main content

Main image

The Virgin and Child in a Landscape:
Catalogue entry

Catalogue contents

About the catalogue

Entry details

Full title
The Virgin and Child in a Landscape
Artist
Jan Provoost
Inventory number
NG713
Author
Lorne Campbell

Catalogue entry

, 2014

Extracted from:
Lorne Campbell, The Sixteenth Century Netherlandish Paintings with French Paintings before 1600 (London: National Gallery Company and Yale University Press, 2014).

© The National Gallery, London

Oil on oak panel, 62.5 × 51.3 cm,
painted surface 60.2 × 49.5 cm

Provenance

The painting was in the collection of Joseph von Rechberg (1769–1833), and was purchased with the rest of his pictures in 1815 by Ludwig Kraft Ernst of Oettingen‐Wallerstein (1791–1870). Among the Oettingen‐Wallerstein paintings sent to England in 1847, it became in 1851 the property of Prince Albert and, together with the others, was presented in 1863 by Queen Victoria, in accordance with the wishes of her late husband. It was one of the pictures accepted by the Trustees and was hung in the Gallery between September and November 1863.1

Exhibitions

At Kensington Palace (for sale), 1848 (34); Manchester 1857 (provisional catalogue 527, definitive catalogue 423); Bruges 1998 (23).

Version

A painting of The Virgin and Child in a Landscape, once in the collection of D. Burgers and auctioned at Lucerne on 25 August 1932 (fig. 1), was attributed to ‘Isenbrant’ by Friedländer,2 who saw a connection with Dürer’s engraving of the Virgin and Child with a Monkey but not with NG 713. The Child is indeed a reversed version of Dürer’s Child, but the Virgin and the landscape are similar to the corresponding parts of NG 713.

Fig. 1

Follower of Albert Cornelis, The Virgin and Child. Oil on panel, 41.5 × 34 cm. Lucerne, sale 25 August 1932. © Photo courtesy of the owner

Early Reproduction

A photograph was included in the collection by Caldesi and Wornum 1868–73, following p. 311.

Technical Notes

The painting was cleaned in 1972–3. Generally the paint is in good condition, though there are several small losses in the sky and landscape and the red lakes have faded. The join in the panel, which passes through the Virgin’s face, has been broken and remade and small losses along this join, including lacunae in her right temple and cheek, have been retouched. Fragments of gold leaf lying beneath the painted rays indicate that there was once gilding in the Virgin’s halo; the change to a painted halo probably occurred very early since the yellow rays contain lead‐tin yellow. The Child’s flesh, eyes and hair are all worn, and many of the changes made during the execution have become more evident, which has an adverse effect on his appearance. The losses and retouchings clearly show in infrared reflectography (fig. 3).

The panel, which measures 62.5 × 51.3 cm, is made of two boards of oak. The join, 21.8 cm from the left edge, is reinforced with two dowels, visible in X‐radiographs. It has been established that the oak is from the Baltic region, that the two boards are from the same tree, that the 164 rings of the first board were formed between 1262 and 1425 and that the 224 rings of the second board were formed between 1260 and 1483.3 There is a pronounced convex warp. The panel is bevelled at the back, top and bottom but apparently not at the sides. The thickness is approximately 0.5 cm and the reverse, which is in its original state, has been carefully finished. On the reverse are various chalk marks, including the cancelled number 52 (referring to Waagen’s catalogue of 1854) and three paper labels: the first, at the centre of the top edge, is inscribed N. 13.; the second two are Oettingen‐Wallerstein labels and give the number, 66, from the catalogues of about 1826 and 1827.

The ground is chalk in glue (confirmed by EDX analysis and FTIR microscopy); over that a lead white priming has been applied. The presence of unpainted edges and barbes on all four sides confirms that the paint surface has not been trimmed. Infrared photographs and reflectography reveal a great deal of underdrawing. In the Virgin’s mantle and dress, there is, besides the outlines, much regular hatching and cross‐hatching, which indicate areas of shadow. The heads and hands are also outlined and hatched; the drawing here looks less disciplined, partly because of the alterations in these areas. In the landscape the underdrawing is very much freer and, on our left, bears little relation to the painted landscape.

The most obvious changes are in the landscape and in the heads. The Virgin’s head and all her features were underdrawn higher and she wore a crown. The Child’s head was painted [page 639][page 640]where it was underdrawn but his nose and mouth were painted below and on our right of the underdrawn nose and mouth. His right arm was underdrawn and painted higher; the elbow was moved down during the course of painting. His left arm was painted below and on our left of the drawn arm; he may have been wearing a shirt in the underdrawing, and his toy was at a different angle. His legs were splayed to reveal his genitals, underdrawn where his left thigh is now painted. It is not possible to see how the left leg was positioned in the underdrawing. His underdrawn right leg crossed where the left leg is painted, with the underdrawn right foot reaching to below where the left foot is painted. This underdrawn right leg was never painted. As blue paint for the Virgin’s robe lies beneath the painted right leg, the robe must have been at least underpainted before the artist decided upon the definitive positions for the Child’s legs. The knuckles of the Virgin’s left hand were underdrawn as bracket‐like shapes and the middle and little fingers of her right hand were drawn longer than they are painted. The flowerpot was underdrawn higher than its painted position. The carnations are not reserved but are painted on top of the landscape, which is not at all unusual. Similarly, the small figures in the background are not underdrawn or reserved.

The Virgin’s pink mantle is painted with red lake and lead white, with red lake alone used in the final modelling layers in the shadows. Analysis by HPLC identified the dyestuff in the red lake pigment as mainly brazilwood, with a small madder component, seemingly together in one red lake pigment, rather than as two different red lake pigments mixed by the artist to give the desired colour (madder lakes tend to be rather orange‐red while brazilwood lakes are more crimson in hue). This mixture could have arisen through the use of dyed wool shearings, a waste product of textile production, as the source of the dyestuff during manufacture of the red lake, and indeed small red fibres in the surface of the paint are visible with a stereomicroscope. Brazilwood is a very fugitive dyestuff (although madder is more stable); the paint of the mantle, and more particularly the pattern on the figured cloth‐of‐gold underdress, which is also painted in red lake, do show evidence of fading. The warm grey base colour of the underdress is a mixture of lead white, lead‐tin yellow and charcoal black and is now visible at the surface of this drapery in places where there is wearing or there are small losses (see fig. 5). The general colour of the cloth has then been laid in and modelled with a paint consisting of yellow earth, which in the shadows also contains some black, as well as being more thinly applied so that the grey underpaint has a greater optical effect at the surface. The brocade pattern is painted with red lake and there are final highlights in small strokes of lead‐tin yellow.

Fig. 2

Photomicrograph of the embroidery and pearls on the Virgin’s mantle. © The National Gallery, London

The only blue pigment used is azurite. In the Virgin’s drapery a high‐quality grade of large particle size and intense colour is present in the upper layers, while in the underpaint the azurite is of smaller particle size and slightly greener and weaker in colour. The high‐quality grade has also been used, mixed with lead white, in the sky and in parts of the more distant landscape, which are rather blue in hue. There does not, however, seem to be any indication of fading of a yellow component; a sample from a grassy area just below the small figure of a woman with a pot on her head shows a light green underpaint of lead white, lead‐tin yellow, verdigris and copper sulphate, followed by a blue layer containing only azurite and lead white.4

The medium was identified by GC–MS analysis as linseed oil: in white paint from a house in the background and a highlight on the water in the pond, in red from the Virgin’s mantle, and in green from a hill in the background. In a sample from the whitish wall of the house at the right edge, there is some evidence that the oil may have undergone some partial heat pretreatment. No resin was detected in any of the four samples taken for GC–MS analysis, but FTIR analysis of a cross‐section does suggest that a little may be present in the darkest, most translucent green areas of the foreground.5

Description

The Virgin is magnificently dressed: her headband is set with jewels and pearls; the neckline of her dress is cloth of gold set with pearls; her dress is lined with grey fur; the edges of her mantle are set with more pearls and embroidered with gold thread (fig. 2). Her most expensive garment is half‐hidden: her cloth‐of‐gold underdress, a small part of which is, almost by accident, revealed (figs 5, 6). She holds in her right hand a posy of flowers (fig. 4), the one identifiable bloom being a yellow stock. In her halo, rays painted in lead‐tin yellow alternate with red‐brown coloured rays, but fragments of gold leaf are present beneath the yellow rays, suggesting that there may once have been gilding and that the rays have subsequently been painted either by the artist himself (if the gold was lost almost immediately) or by an early restorer. There is a rosy glow in the sky around her head, perhaps to suggest sunrise – and possibly also the advent of Christ. The Child is naked but for a semi‐transparent cloth wound around him. He is sitting on a shirt of white linen and playing with a whirligig toy (fig. 9). By pulling the string, it would be possible to make [page 641][page 642]the part with sails fly upwards like a helicopter. Similar toys are seen in contemporary paintings and tapestries (fig. 10).6

Fig. 3

Infrared reflectogram of NG 713. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 4

Photomicrograph of the flowers in the posy held by the Virgin. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 5

Photomicrograph of the cloth of gold of the underdress. © The National Gallery, London

The Virgin is seated in a garden on a turf bench supported on planks of wood. Such benches seem to have been common in small gardens or ‘paradises’ and were ‘planted with low‐growing, vigorous and sweet‐smelling flowers’.7 Resting on the bench is an earthenware pot in which grow carnations, protected by and supported on a carved and hooped wooden framework. Carnations needed special care because their heads were too heavy to be supported on their elongated stems and because they had to be moved to shelter during cold and inclement weather (fig. 7).8 On the bench and in the verdure at the Virgin’s feet grow violets, strawberries, dandelions – two with ‘clock’ seed heads (fig. 8) – plantains and columbines. A thorny plant extending horizontally across the foreground on our left may be a blackberry. The plants are quickly painted and the detail is not laboured, so that it is not always feasible to identify every plant.

Behind the Virgin on our left is a wooden fence tied together with string; beyond that is a landscape through which run two streams. The people and the buildings in the landscape [page 643]seem not to have any narrative significance. Sheep graze on the hill in the upper left corner and are watched by two figures, one reclining and one standing (fig. 11). Below, in front of the buildings, a tall figure leans on a long stick or pole (p. 637, fig. 1). In front of him, a woman carrying a large metal pot on her head is climbing a stile (fig. 12). The man on the left, wearing a blue hat and dressed in pink and blue, carries a stick in [page 644]his left hand and, on his back, a basket that contains pink and blue objects. He is apparently a pedlar (fig. 13). On the right of the Virgin a figure looks as though he is running, with a stick in one hand and the other arm outstretched; he is moving towards a white horse (fig. 14). Ducks, purplish brown and bluish in colour, are swimming in the stream. Near the right edge, in front of the buildings, are two men: one, dressed in yellow, is seated and appears exhausted; the other, dressed in blue, is standing or walking and carries a pole (fig. 15).

Fig. 6

Ultraviolet photograph of the underdress. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 7

Photomicrograph of one of the carnations in the flowerpot. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 8

Photomicrograph of a dandelion clock. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 9

Photomicrograph of the whirligig toy. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 10

Netherlandish, Children and Peacocks. Tapestry. Paris, Musée des Arts Décoratifs (inv. 10551). Detail of a small boy with a whirligig. © Lorne Campbell

Fig. 11

Photomicrograph of shepherds and sheep. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 12

Photomicrograph of the woman climbing over a stile. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 13

Photomicrograph of the pedlar. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 14

Photomicrograph of the running man. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 15

Photomicrograph of the two men near the right edge. © The National Gallery, London

Attribution and Date

In 1817–18, the picture was said to be monogrammed by Heinrich Aldegrever ( c. 1502–1555/60) and dated 1524. No trace remains of Aldegrever’s monogram (AA) or the date, said to have been ‘on the left’.9 The attribution to Aldegrever was retained in the Oettingen‐Wallerstein catalogues of about 1826 and 1827 and 1848 but dropped in 1854 by Waagen, who thought that the picture was by Jan Swart.10 In the Gallery catalogues between 1864 and 1906, it was given to ‘Mostert’ or Mostaert, then believed to have painted many of the pictures now ascribed to Benson and ‘Isenbrant’. Meanwhile, Hulin in 1902–3 had attributed the painting to Provoost,12 and Friedländer agreed.13 Since 1911, it has been catalogued under the name of Provoost.

The figures of the Virgin and Child paraphrase, sometimes in reverse, the same figures in Jan van Eyck’s Virgin and Child with Saints Donatian and George and Canon Joris van der Paele, dated 1436, then in the Collegiate Church of St Donatian in Bruges and now in the Groeningemuseum there (fig. 16). In NG 713 the Virgin holds flowers in her right and not her left hand, and the ornament at the centre of her headband is similar, though not identical, to that in van Eyck’s picture. The reference to the famous van Eyck would have been obvious to contemporaries.14

The attribution to Provoost is entirely convincing, if allowance is made for the damages, especially in the flesh of the [page 645]Virgin and Child. The surprisingly blue landscape is apparently typical of Provoost, who seems to have liked azurite and mixed greens. He painted relatively quickly and did not labour with enormous care on small details, for example of landscape, flowers, textiles and jewels. The sheep in the background have been reduced to summary dashes of white paint (fig. 11). Provoost’s inattentive attitude and relative lack of painterly skills become painfully obvious if his picture is compared with the van Eyck that inspired it. Provoost appears to have liked painting flowerpots as well as vases of flowers and flowers supported on trellises.15 The underdrawing is idiosyncratic but completely compatible in style with the underdrawings of the Bruges Last Judgement, the St Petersburg Glorification of the Virgin and the Prado Zacharias.16 Provoost appears to have made his own underdrawings, whereas many other artists delegated them to assistants.

There are no exact indications of date but the picture seems close in style to the very much larger Glorification of the Virgin (St Petersburg), possibly of 1524–5.

Fig. 16

Jan van Eyck, The Virgin and Child with Saints Donatian and George and Canon Joris van der Paele, 1436. Oil on panel, painted surface 122.1 × 15 7.8 cm. Bruges, Groeningemuseum. Detail of the Virgin and Child. © Lukas – Art in Flanders VZW/The Bridgeman Art Library

Notes

Infrared reflectography was carried out using OSIRIS (InGaAs digital sensor). For further details see p. 18, note 23.

1. For the history of the Oettingen‐Wallerstein pictures, see pp. 31–4 above. (Back to text.)

2. Friedländer, vol. XI, no. 177. (Back to text.)

3. Report by Peter Klein, dated 31 January 2006, in the NG dossier. (Back to text.)

4. The cross‐section was analysed by SEM–EDX analysis. No lead‐tin yellow was found and although there are minor amounts of an orange‐coloured iron oxide, this is most likely to be an impurity associated with the azurite. There was no indication of the presence of faded yellow lake in the form of aluminium‐or calcium‐containing particles that could be the substrate of the pigment. (Back to text.)

5. The results of ATR–FTIR microspectroscopic imaging on a cross‐section showed evidence of reaction of the verdigris pigment with a resin, since an absorption band was present in an FTIR spectrum that can be assigned to the carboxylate group of a copper‐resin acid compound. (Back to text.)

6. The Child holds one in the Virgin and Child with Angels, attributed to the Master of the Embroidered Foliage (Louvre: Friedländer, vol. IV. no. 88; Lorentz and Comblen‐Sonkes 2001, pp. 192–7, plate CXLVII); Saint James the Less plays with one in the centre panel of the triptych of the Holy Kindred, painted in 1513 by ‘Johannes’ for Antonius Tsgrooten, Abbot of Tongerlo (Maria‐ter‐Heide near Braschaat, parish church of Onze‐Lieve‐Vrouw Onbevlekt Ontvangen; Griet Blanckaert and Christina Currie, ‘Maître Jean, vers 1513–1517, La Lignée de Sainte Anne, Credo’ in S.O.S. Peintures anciennes, Sauvegarde de 20 œuvres sur panneau, exh. cat., Musée d’art ancien, Brussels 1996, pp. 114–127). A millefleurs tapestry of Children and Peacocks, considered to be Netherlandish work of the early sixteenth century, shows a naked little boy playing with a similar toy (Paris, Musée des Arts Décoratifs, don Jules Maciet 1903, inv. no. 10551: fig. 10). A child playing with a similar toy is in the lower left corner of a tapestry of Saint John the Baptist preaching, one of a series of the Life of the Baptist woven in Brussels in about 1510 (Madrid, Palacio Real [inv. 10005830]: see Âge d’or bruxellois, Tapisseries de la Couronne d’Espagne, exh. cat., Cathedral, Brussels 2000, pp. 54–7, with a good detail reproduction on p. 57). (Back to text.)

7. Fisher 1998, p. 36. (Back to text.)

8. Ibid. , pp. 23–4. (Back to text.)

9. ‘Grundbuch’, 1817–18 , no. CCII: Gemahlt von Aldegrever dessen Namenszeichen mit das Jahrszahl 1524 auf der linken Seite steht. (Back to text.)

11. Waagen 18542, no. 52; at the Manchester exhibition of 1857, the picture was attributed to Jan Swart. (Back to text.)

12. Hulin 1902–3, pp. 20, 27. He thought that the London picture was an early work. (Back to text.)

13. Ibid. , p. 26 note; Friedländer, vol. IX, no. 168. (Back to text.)

14. For an instructive (but not completely exhaustive) list of the many copies and versions of van Eyck’s painting, see Aquilin Janssens de Bisthoven, M. Baes‐Dondeyne and D. De Vos, De Vlaamse Primitieven, I. Corpus … 1, Stedelijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten (Groeningemuseum) Brugge, 3rd edn, vol. I, Brussels 1981, pp. 210–13. (Back to text.)

15. Compare the Bruges Saint Godelieve with a Donatrix; the reverse of the Piacenza Virgin and Child; and the fragments from the polyptych of the Holy Kindred in the Prado and the Louvre: Friedländer, vol. IX, nos 132, 167, 129. (Back to text.)

16. Spronk on the Last Judgement in Martens 19982, pp. 44–6; Nikulin’s article in Russian on the Glorification in Ars Auro Prior, Studia Ioanni Bialostocki sexagenario dicata, Warsaw 1981, pp. 331–5; exh. cat. Madrid 2006, pp. 114–23 on the Prado Zacharias. (Back to text.)

Abbreviations

ATR–FTIR imaging
Attenuated total reflectance–Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopic imaging
Catalogues of about 1826, 1827
‘Catalogue de la Gallerie de Wallerstein’ (c.1826) and ‘Katalog der Gallerie zu Wallerstein 1827’ (originals at the Alte Pinakothek, Munich; photocopies at the National Gallery, London)
EDX
Energy dispersive X‐ray microanalysis
FTIR
Fourier transform infrared microscopy
GC–MS
Gas chromatography linked to mass‐spectrometry
HPLC
High‐performance liquid chromatography
NG
National Gallery, London
SEM–EDX
Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive X‐ray

List of archive references cited

  • Schloss Harburg über Donauwörth, Fürstlich Oettingen‐Wallerstein’sche Bibliothek und Kunstsammlung, Oe.B.VI,6,2°,9: ‘Grundbuch der Hochfürstlich Oettingen Wallersteinischen Gallerie altdeutscher Gemaehlde: Erster Theil, gefertiget in den Iahren 1817 u. 1818’, 1817–18, photocopy at the National Gallery

List of references cited

Bartsch 1803–21
BartschAdam vonLe Peintre graveur (publication date of first volume often given as 1802), 21 volsVienna 1803–21
Blanckaert and Currie 1996
BlanckaertGriet and Christina Currie, ‘Maître Jean, vers 1513–1517, La Lignée de Sainte Anne, Credo’, in S.O.S. Peintures anciennes, Sauvegarde de 20 œuvres sur panneau (exh. cat. Musée d’art ancien), Brussels 1996, 114–127
Brussels 2000
Cathedral, BrusselsÂge d’or bruxellois, Tapisseries de la Couronne d’Espagne (exh. cat. Cathedral, Brussels), Brussels 2000
Campbell 1998
CampbellLorneNational Gallery Catalogues: The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish SchoolsLondon 1998
Currie and Allart 2012
CurrieChristina and Dominique AllartThe Brueg[H]el Phenomenon, Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Pieter Brueghel the Younger with a Special Focus on Technique and Copying Practice3 volsScientia Artis8Brussels 2012
Davies 1946
DaviesMartinNational Gallery Catalogues: The French SchoolLondon 1946 (revised 2nd edn, London 1957)
Davies 1957
DaviesMartinNational Gallery Catalogues: The French School, 2nd edn, revised, London 1957
Davies 1968
DaviesMartinNational Gallery Catalogues: Early Netherlandish School, 3rd edn, London 1968
Fisher 1998
FisherCeliaFlowers and FruitThe National Gallery Pocket GuidesLondon 1998
Friedländer 1967–76
FriedländerMax JacobEarly Netherlandish Painting, eds Nicole Veronée‐VerhaegenGerard Lemmens and Henri Pauwelstrans. Heinz Norden14 vols in 16Leiden and Brussels 1967–76
Galand et al. 2013
GalandAlexandreet al.Catalogue of Early Netherlandish Painting: Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, The Flemish Primitives, VI, The Bernard van Orley GroupBrussels
Gordon 1993
GordonDillianMaking and Meaning: The Wilton Diptych (exh. cat. The National Gallery, London), London 1993
Gordon, Monnas and Elam 1997
GordonDillianLisa Monnas and Caroline Elam, eds, The Regal Image of Richard II and the Wilton Diptychwith an introduction by Caroline BarronLondon 1997
Gruner 1848
GrunerLudwigDescriptive Catalogue of a Collection of Ancient Greek, Italian, German, Flemish, and Dutch Pictures (Belonging to His Serence Highness Prince L. d’Oettingen‐Wallerstein) now at Kensington PalaceLondon 1848
Hulin 1902–3
HulinGeorges, ‘Quelques peintres brugeois de la première moitié du XVIe siècle’, Kunst & Leven/L’Art & la Vie, 1902–3, 161–43
Janssens de Bisthoven, Baes‐Dondeyne and De Vos 1981
Janssens de BisthovenAquilinM. Baes‐Dondeyne and D. De VosStedelijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten (Groeningemuseum) BruggeDe Vlaamse Primitieven, Corpus …1, 3rd edn, Brussels 1981, 1
Koreny 2012
KorenyFritzHieronymus Bosch, Die Zeichnungen, Werkstatt und Nachfolge bis zum Ende des 16. JahrhundertsTurnhout 2012
Lavin 1975
LavinM.A.Seventeenth‐Century Barberini Documents and Inventories of ArtNew York 1975
Levey 1959
LeveyMichaelNational Gallery Catalogues: The German SchoolLondon 1959
Lorentz and Comblen‐Sonkes
LorentzPhilippe and Micheline Comblen‐SonkesCorpus de la peinture des anciens Pays‐Bas méridionaux et de la principauté de Liège au quinzième siècle, 19, Musée du Louvre, Paris, III2 volsBrussels 2001
Martens 1998
MartensMaximiliaan P.J., ed., Bruges and the Renaissance, Memling to Pourbus, CatalogueBruges 1998
Martens 1998b
MartensMaximiliaan P.J., ed., Bruges et la Renaissance, De Memling à Pourbus, NoticesBruges 1998
Museo Nacional del Prado 2006
Museo Nacional del PradoEl trazo oculto: Dibujos subyacentes en pinturas de los siglos XV y XVI (exh. cat.), Madrid 2006
Nikulin 1981
NikulinNikolai, in Ars Auro Prior, Studia Ioanni Bialostocki sexagenario dicataWarsaw 1981, 331–5
Saunders et al. 2006
SaundersDavidRachel BillingeJohn CupittNick Atkinson and Haida Liang, ‘A New Camera for High‐Resolution Infrared Imaging of Works of Art’, Studies in Conservation, 2006, 51277–90
Waagen 1854b
WaagenGustav F.Descriptive Catalogue of a Collection of Byzantine, Early Italian, German and Flemish Pictures Belonging to His Royal Highness Prince AlbertLondon 1854
Weidema and Koopstra 2012
WeidemaSytske and Anna KoopstraJan Gossart, The Documentary Evidencewith a foreword by Maryan W. AinsworthTurnhout 2012
Wine 2001
WineHumphreyNational Gallery Catalogues: The Seventeenth Century French PaintingsLondon 2001

List of exhibitions cited

Bruges 1998
Bruges, Memlingmuseum – Oud Sint Janshospitaal, Van Memling tot Pourbus, 1998 (exh. cat.: Martens 1998)
London 1848, Kensington Palace
London, Kensington Palace, Oettingen‐Wallerstein exhibition, 1848 (exh. cat.: Gruner 1848)
Manchester 1857
Manchester, Old Trafford, Exhibition Hall, Art Treasures of the United Kingdom Collected at Manchester in 1857, 5 May–17 October 1857
[page 12]

The Low Countries in the sixteenth century.

[page 13]

The Organisation of the Catalogue

Geographical Boundaries and Chronological Limits

Pieter Bruegel the Elder died in 1569. By that time the Habsburgs had made the Low Countries into an independent political entity, by detaching, in 1529, the counties of Artois and Flanders from the kingdom of France and by separating, in 1548, the other provinces from the Empire. Charles V had annexed to his Burgundian inheritance Tournai, West Frisia, Utrecht and the Oversticht, Groningen and the Ommelanden, Cambrai and the duchy of Guelders. Only the Prince‐Bishopric of Liège and the lordship of Ravenstein remained outside Habsburg control. Under Philip II, in 1559–61, the establishment of three new archdioceses1 and fifteen dioceses2 provided for the newly emancipated region an independent ecclesiastical structure. The Spanish Netherlands, also known as the ‘Burgundian Circle’ of the Empire, with which it maintained vestigial links, or the ‘Seventeen Provinces’, included a large swathe of what is now northern France. Though the present political frontiers, created during later periods, have no relevance for the sixteenth century, the linguistic frontiers have remained in much the same places.

In 1569, the kingdom of France was a good deal smaller than the present French Republic. Although the duchy of Burgundy had been recovered in 1477 and Calais had been taken in 1558, the counties of Artois, Flanders and Hainault and the Free County of Burgundy (Franche Comté) belonged to the Habsburgs. France had annexed in 1552 the cities of Metz, Toul and Verdun, but Alsace and Lorraine remained parts of the Empire and the Dukes of Savoy controlled large areas in the south east. Lyon was a frontier town (though it temporarily ceased to be so between 1536 and 1559, when the French occupied Bresse and much of the rest of Savoy). Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin were enclaves that belonged to the papacy. The viscounty of Béarn remained independent until 1620.

Three years after Bruegel’s death, in 1572, the Dutch ‘Sea Beggars’ captured the little port of Brill, and three thousand Protestants were murdered in Paris early on Saint Bartholomew’s Day. These events initiated periods of dramatic change.

In the present catalogue the sixteenth century has been rather loosely defined, since several pictures certainly painted during the early years of the sixteenth century have already been catalogued with the fifteenth‐century pictures3 and some of the paintings catalogued here may conceivably have been painted before 1500. It seemed sensible to separate pictures that are closely linked with fifteenth‐century traditions from those, for example Bosch’s Christ Mocked (The Crowning with Thorns), NG 4744, that mark new departures in both style and technique and may be associated with Bruegel, rather than van Eyck, van der Weyden and van der Goes. It is this caesura of style and technique that seems very much more significant than the beginning of the new century.

By ‘Early French Pictures’ are meant those that precede the seventeenth‐century paintings already catalogued by Humphrey Wine.4 The Wilton Diptych (NG 4451), catalogued in 1946 and 1957 as ‘French(?) School’,5 has been omitted because it was painted in England by an artist or artists whose nationalities and places of training are not yet established.6 Also omitted from the present catalogue are one picture classed as French by Martin Davies in his French catalogues of 1946–57,7 and four pictures classed by him as Netherlandish in his Netherlandish catalogues of 1945–68.8 One picture classed as German by Michael Levey in 1959, the Virgin and Child with an Angel in a Landscape (NG 2157), is here catalogued as Netherlandish.9 The portrait of Susanna Stefan (NG 184) was painted in Nuremberg in the early 1560s but its painter was beyond question Nicolas de Neufchâtel, who came from Mons and was trained in the Low Countries. The picture is therefore retained in the Netherlandish section of the catalogue, but a revised edition of the entry will be included in the German catalogue.

It has been convenient to catalogue in the same volume the Early French and the sixteenth‐century Netherlandish paintings because the Early French pictures are rather few in number and several of the painters are thought to have received at least part of their training in the Low Countries. Corneille de Lyon certainly came from The Hague; Jean Hey was described as teutonicus and was probably from one of the provinces of the Low Countries that were independent of France; François Clouet’s father Jean Clouet was certainly born outside France and may well have come from the Low Countries. The style of the Master of Saint Giles seemed so Netherlandish that his paintings have previously been treated in the Netherlandish catalogues; there have been attempts to identify him with artists who came from Bruges or Tournai. It is interesting to consider the extents to which the Master of Saint Giles, and indeed Jean Hey, differ in style and technique from contemporary painters working in the Low Countries. François Quesnel was born in Scotland but his father was French and François worked in France. Simon de Mailly came from Châlons‐sur‐Marne and was therefore French, though he worked in Avignon, a city that was not, strictly speaking, part of France.

The Sixteenth‐Century Netherlandish Pictures

The paintings by Bosch, Bruegel and Beuckelaer, together with the unrivalled group of works by Gossart, are all great masterpieces; there are also a few rather undistinguished pictures. Most of those lesser paintings, however, are interesting for reasons other than their modest aesthetic qualities.

[page 14]

The Netherlandish collection has come together almost by accident. There are 69 Netherlandish entries in this catalogue (one of them devoted to all four paintings in Beuckelaer’s Elements series), of which 43 were given or bequeathed (20 gifts, 23 bequests) and 25 were bought, including five acquired through the purchase of the Krüger collection10 and three through that of the Beaucousin collection.11 The remaining item is the very damaged portrait transferred in 1880 from the British Museum.12 The gifts and bequests include all four paintings by Quinten Massys.13 The purchases include many of the most important masterpieces: five of the Gossarts (two from the Beaucousin collection), the Bosch, the Bruegel and the Beuckelaers. In many cases, the Trustees managed to drive down the price. Gossart’s Elderly Couple (NG 1689) was bought in 1900 for £4,000. The vendor and his agent, the dealer Ayerst Hooker Buttery, had hoped for more; the Gallery’s original offer had been £2,500.14 Agnew’s parted with Gossart’s Young Princess (NG 2211) without taking any profit. It was well known that the 9th Earl of Carlisle had expressed a wish that Gossart’s Adoration of the Kings (NG 2790) should be offered to the nation ‘on extremely favourable terms’ or at less than its market value. The dealer Guido Arnot had wanted £50,000 for his Bruegel (now NG 3556) but accepted £15,000, while the Bosch (NG 4744) was cheap at £5,291 16s. 9d.

Though considerable effort had to be made to raise money for Gossart’s Adoration and for Bruegel’s Adoration, and the National Art Collections Fund (now The Art Fund) played a vital part in both acquisitions, it cannot be claimed that the Gallery has spent extravagantly on its sixteenth‐century Netherlandish collection. It must be remembered that the Trustees and Directors were to some extent bound by the Treasury Minute of 27 March 1855:… my Lords are of opinion that, as a general rule, preference should be given to fine pictures for sale abroad. As regards the finer works of art in this country it may be assumed that, although they may change hands, they will not leave our shores … as a general rule, preference should be given to good specimens of the Italian schools, including those of the earlier masters.

Meanwhile, paintings by the most outstanding sixteenth‐century Netherlandish masters had been leaving ‘our shores’ in large numbers since the seventeenth century and continued to do so during the twentieth century. There is little point in listing those great pictures that could have been acquired, at little expense, for the Gallery. It is more important to stress that the collection that we have, despite the glories of its Gossarts, its Bosch and its Bruegel, has come together by happy accident. Though the collection of fifteenth‐century Netherlandish pictures may be, and has been, treated as a random sample of what was produced, it is not possible to claim that the sixteenth‐century Netherlandish paintings constitute a sample that is in any way representative. They must be discussed in rather different ways.

The Early French Pictures

The collection of early French pictures at the National Gallery is small, has come together largely by accident and has no coherence. There are thirteen French entries in this catalogue, one of which is devoted to the two scenes from the life of Saint Giles by the Master of Saint Giles (NG 1419 and NG 4681). The Saint Giles panels and the fragment by Jean Hey, usually known as the Master of Moulins (NG 4092), are pictures of great beauty, importance and interest. The remaining eleven, ten of which are portraits, are considerably less significant. Only two of them were purchased: NG 660, the portrait of the Seigneur d’Andoins from the workshop of François Clouet; and NG 3582, the portrait of a young woman here attributed to the workshop of François Quesnel.

Principles of Investigation

Because the two collections are not in any sense representative, and because they are being treated in one catalogue, I have not attempted to write an introductory essay along the same lines as the Introduction to my catalogue of The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Schools.15 Instead I have included a study of the ways in which sixteenth‐century Netherlandish paintings were viewed by people of that time. I have concentrated on pictures from the National Gallery Collection and on artists represented there, but it has not been possible to be exclusive and the reader will find many references to painters such as Lucas de Heere and Dominicus Lampsonius, both of whom worked in England but neither of whom is represented at the Gallery. Since the situation of the artist did not alter dramatically from the fifteenth to the sixteenth century, readers will find in my earlier catalogue remarks on various subjects that may be applied to the sixteenth century: for instance, on the art market or on the organisation of the painter’s workshop. The section on ‘The Making of Pictures’16 I amplify below by describing ‘The Processes of Making’ and by including some statistics on the Netherlandish and French pictures. It would, however, be unwise to make many extrapolations from the statistics presented.

The 69 entries in this catalogue for Netherlandish pictures and 13 for French make 82 entries in all, but they cover 108 painted surfaces. One entry is devoted to Beuckelaer’s Elements (NG 6585–NG 6588), four large canvases, and another to the pictures by the Master of Saint Giles (NG 1419 and NG 4681), two panels, each painted on both sides. Only four of the 108 do not include figures.17 Panels from the same polyptych are catalogued as one entry: the Heemskercks (NG 6508.1 and 2), which were the wings of a triptych; the two panels from the workshop of Quinten Massys (NG 295.1 and 2), which were put together as a diptych; the two panels from the workshop of Goossen van der Weyden (NG 1082 and NG 1084), both from the same altarpiece. The three triptychs that survive more or less intact are counted as single entities (NG 1088 and NG 2606, both from the workshop of Pieter Coecke, and NG 1085 by a follower of Quinten Massys).

It is worth pointing out that four of the pictures are undoubtedly fragments18 and that at least another ten have been parted from companion paintings – other parts of altarpieces19 [page 15]or pendants.20 Several more may have had painted reverses, now destroyed. Many of the companion pictures are lost, but others survive and, with much help from colleagues in other galleries and private collections, we have tried to study them with the greatest care and to assemble as much information as possible on their physical states. The two Saint Giles panels in Washington and Jean Hey’s Annunciation in Chicago were reunited in recent exhibitions with their London companions.

The Kingdom of France in the sixteenth century.

The Examination of the Pictures

Working in close association with my colleagues in the Conservation and Scientific Departments, I have studied each picture, brought to the Conservation Department for that purpose. This initial programme of examination began in 1991, conducted in exactly the same ways as for the catalogue of The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Schools.21 During the time that has elapsed between the initial examinations and the completion of the present catalogue, the technology available for scientific analysis has advanced enormously and it has been possible to take advantage of new techniques in order to improve analyses and make further discoveries. Meanwhile some paintings have been treated in the Conservation Department since their initial examinations, so that we could study them and refine greatly our first conclusions. As a result, some of the entries include more detailed, or more recent, information than do others.

[page 16]

We had already consulted records of any conservation treatments or previous examinations, X‐radiographs, infrared and other technical photographs, and existing reports on the analysis of paint samples. With Rachel Billinge, I studied the structure of any frame that was original and the construction of each support. The support was measured and notes were made of any inscriptions, seals, numbers or other significant marks on the reverse. Using infrared reflectography, Rachel Billinge examined the entire surface of each painting; we took detailed notes and she made reflectograms of any significant passages. Peter Klein is the dendrochronologist who has studied the London panels.

Rachel Billinge and I looked at many of the pictures under ultraviolet light. We examined every paint surface under a binocular microscope and made notes to be used in writing a detailed description of the picture and a report on its condition. What appeared to be underdrawing in the infrared images was scrutinised to ensure that it was in truth underdrawing rather than dark lines in the surface paint. The edges were examined with particular care to establish whether they had been cut, and, if so, how the cuts had been made, as well as to detect any traces of paint or gilding that might have strayed onto the painted surface when the original frame was decorated. Where possible, pigments were identified and layer structures observed. We tried to note, and describe, any unusual or potentially unusual aspects of the painting technique. Our colleagues from the Scientific Department also took part in the microscopic examination, when we decided whether and where it would be possible to obtain paint samples. Ashok Roy, Marika Spring, Raymond White, Jennie Pilc, Catherine Higgitt, David Peggie and Helen Howard took samples for analysis; they and their colleagues Jo Kirby and Rachel Morrison helped with the analyses and re‐examined existing samples from the Department’s archive. Martin Wyld, Larry Keith, David Bomford, Jill Dunkerton, Anthony Reeve, Paul Ackroyd, Britta New and Nele Bordt, all members of the Conservation Department, and the members of the Scientific Department already mentioned, have given particularly helpful advice. Rachel Billinge made many detail photographs and photomicrographs. If X‐radiographs or other technical images were required, they were made at that stage by members of the Photographic Department. The picture was then returned to its place in the Gallery.

Initially, Rachel Billinge made up the computerised reflectogram assemblies from images taken with the Hamamatsu vidicon camera.22 More recent infrared examinations have taken place using one of two cameras with digital sensors based on indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs).23 The paint samples were studied in the Scientific Department. Preparatory layers (grounds and primings), pigments and layer structures were examined by optical microscopy and analysis undertaken by energy‐dispersive X‐ray microanalysis in the scanning electron microscope (SEM–EDX) and by X‐ray powder diffraction (XRD), X‐ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) and attenuated total reflectance – Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopic imaging (ATR–FTIR). Lake pigments were studied with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and paintbinding media were identified by Gas Chromatography (GC), Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS) and the complementary technique of FTIR microscopy in transmission mode. At regular intervals, we discussed and collated our results. Rachel Billinge and Marika Spring have been unfailingly careful in checking, correcting and expanding the Technical Notes drafted by me, partly from their and their colleagues’ work and notes. They have played a vital part in the writing of this catalogue. Without them, it could never have been brought to its present form.

Arrangement

In the introductory chapter on ‘The Processes of Making’, I have commented on the materials that the painters used and the methods they followed to create pictures of differing kinds. In ‘The History of the Collection’ (and the separate, very short history of the French collection), I have tried to examine the history of the National Gallery Collection in the context of the changing interests of British collectors in Netherlandish and French painting. In the third essay, I have attempted to formulate some generalisations on the ways in which sixteenth‐century Netherlandish pictures were viewed by people of that time.

The catalogue entries are arranged, in the Netherlandish as in the French part, under artists’ names in alphabetical order. The four pictures consigned to anonymity are classified under Netherlandish School and French School. All the others are attached to named artists or to artists with ‘names of convenience’, for example the Master of the Female Half‐Lengths or the Master of Saint Giles. In the biographical essays at the start of each entry or group of entries, the facts of the artists’ lives are set out and the signed, documented or otherwise authenticated pictures are listed. Comments on style and on the workshop of each artist may be included. In the essays on Masters with names of convenience, the works after which they are named are described and the style of each Master is characterised. If a painting is described as by a particular artist, it is assumed that he painted it, with the usual amount of help from his assistants. If it is described as by an artist and his workshop, it is implied that the assistants were very largely responsible but that there was some direct intervention by the master. If a painting is described as from an artist’s workshop, it is implied that it was painted by one or more assistants under the master’s supervision, perhaps from his designs but without his direct intervention. If a painting is described as by a ‘follower’, the implication is that the follower was an imitator active outside the workshop, though he may have been a former assistant. A picture described as by an ‘associate’ is by an artist strongly impressed by the style of a particular master and perhaps striving to emulate his work. He may have collaborated with the master, as his journeyman or on a more equal basis, but was not totally dominated by him and retained some distinctive tastes and idiosyncrasies. The last category under each artist’s name comprises copies, where the painter totally abandoned his own individual style as he attempted to reproduce as accurately as possible the work of the named artist. In each category, the paintings are listed in numerical order, by inventory number.

[page 17]

Each entry begins with a section on ‘Provenance’, setting out the recorded history of the picture. If plausible deductions can be made about its earlier history, they are included in the main text of the entry. The patrons who probably commissioned Beuckelaer’s Four Elements, the Bruegel and Gossart’s Adoration of the Kings are discussed not under ‘Provenance’ but in the relevant sections of the entries. Under ‘Technical Notes’, conservation treatments are described, though minor operations, such as consolidations of flaking paint, are not necessarily enumerated. A condition report follows, where we consider in some detail alterations due to ageing that have affected the appearance of the painting in important ways. Information is then given on the support, the ground and priming, the underdrawing, the pigments and the media; particular attention is given to any changes in composition, important in reconstructing the creative processes of the painter. Unusual technical procedures and any notable peculiarities of handling are mentioned in the final section.

Under ‘Description’, I have pointed out details that may not be immediately obvious in the original or in good colour reproductions and have attempted to identify all the objects represented, including articles of clothing. It is perhaps inevitable that some of the smaller pictures have been more intensively studied and more fully described than some of the larger and more complex compositions. The ‘Description’ is usually, though not invariably, followed by a discussion of the subject of the picture: occasionally the discussion of the iconography – for example that of a portrait – finds its logical place after the attribution and date have been established. Commentaries on the function of the painting, its patron, its attribution and its date follow in the order that I considered reasonable and appropriate in that particular case. I have summarised with some care the views of respected authorities such as Passavant, Friedländer and Hulin; I have referred constantly to previous Gallery catalogues and always to those by my predecessor Martin Davies. Any useful observation or comment I have of course taken into account. I have not seen fit, however, to burden the text with endless citations of books, articles or exhibition catalogues where the authors express but do not justify opinions or merely repeat the findings of others. I could not attempt to cite every published reference to every picture. The admirable indexes kept in the National Gallery Library allow exhaustive bibliographies to be compiled. In the Notes I have given essential citations so that anyone can check my sources. Occasionally I have included in the Notes short digressions, which may interest some readers but are not vital for an understanding of the entry. I have employed the abbreviations listed on p. 11 above. Frequently cited books and articles are referred to by the author’s surname and the date of publication: full details will be found in the List of Publications Cited, which is exactly that and which must not be treated as a Bibliography.

The catalogue entries, written at different times, were complete by the end of 2011. In 2012–13, however, the ‘Technical Notes’ sections were thoroughly revised by Rachel Billinge and Marika Spring to take account of recent discoveries and research. The Magdalen (NG 719), from the workshop of the Master of 1518, was cleaned and restored in 2012–13; this entry has been rewritten. I have not been able to include systematically references to books, articles and exhibition catalogues published in 2012 and 2013: for example, the strangely incomplete survey of the documents on Gossart by Sytske Weidema and Anna Koopstra,24 Alexandre Galand’s exemplary volume on van Orley,25 or the study of Bosch’s drawings by Fritz Koreny.26 A few exceptions have been made, notably for the important book on Bruegel by Christina Currie and Dominique Allart.27

Comparative illustrations are included if they are considered essential for an understanding of the entry or if they are not readily accessible elsewhere. Details and photomicrographs are given to illustrate points made in the text. For pictures that survive in damaged condition – for example the portraits by Mor (NG 1231) and Frans Pourbus the Elder (NG 6412) – photomicrographs of well‐preserved areas are used to convey something of the quality of the originals and to allow readers to glimpse a little of the beauty that these paintings once possessed. Photomicrographs of parts of the less good pictures – for example NG 2616, the portrait of a woman by a follower of Corneille de Lyon, and NG 5762, the Cleopatra attributed to Simon de Mailly – will allow readers to observe and assess the massive differences that separate them from the masterpieces of Beuckelaer, Bruegel, Gossart, Massys, Mor and Jean Hey.

Place names have been given in the forms most familiar to the English‐speaking reader: Bruges for Brugge, The Hague for ’s‐Gravenhage (Den Haag), Mechlin for Mechelen (Malines), Ypres for Ieper. By Christie’s and Sotheby’s are meant the London headquarters of those firms. For sales in other locations, the towns are specified, as in Christie’s, New York, or Sotheby’s, Monaco.

In the catalogue entries, I have tried to explain the physical as well as the historical evidence in the most straightforward way, to make it accessible to the interested general reader as well as to the specialist. In presenting my own conclusions, I have endeavoured to make a clear distinction between fact and speculation. Anyone taking issue with my findings will have the relevant evidence at his or her disposal and will, I hope, be in a position to add to it and to refute or develop my arguments.

[page 18]
Notes

1. Mechlin, Cambrai and Utrecht. (Back to text.)

2. St Omer, Arras, Tournai, Namur, Ypres, Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp, ’s‐Hertogenbosch, Middelburg, Haarlem, Roermond, Deventer, Leeuwarden and Groningen. (Back to text.)

3. See Campbell 1998, p. 7. (Back to text.)

5. Davies 1946, pp. 46–9; Davies 1957, pp. 92–101. (Back to text.)

6. Dillian Gordon et al. , Making and Meaning, The Wilton Diptych, exh. cat., National Gallery, London 1993; Dillian Gordon, Lisa Monnas and Caroline Elam, eds, The Regal Image of Richard II and the Wilton Diptych, London 1997. (Back to text.)

7. Davies 1946, p. 49; 1957, p. 101: The Virgin, NG 1335, described as ‘French School. Fifteenth Century (Imitation) (?)’. It is not a fake but is one of several heads of the Virgin painted in and around Valencia in about 1500. It will be catalogued with the other Spanish pictures. (Back to text.)

8. The first is the Three Men and a Little Girl, NG 2597, catalogued by Davies 1968, pp. 9–10, as ‘Ascribed to Dirck Barendsz.’ but now classified as Venetian. It was given by Pope Urban VIII (1568–1644, Pope from 1623) to Cardinal Francesco Barberini and was listed in Barberini inventories of 1629, 1630, 1631–6 and 1692–1704 with an attribution to Titian (Marilyn Aronberg Lavin, Seventeenth‐Century Barberini Documents and Inventories of Art, New York 1975, pp. 92, 99, 111, 440). The second is the Edzard the Great, Count of East Friesland, NG 2209, catalogued by Davies 1968, p. 145, as Netherlandish School. It was probably painted in East Friesland, the region of Germany around Emden, and will be included in the German catalogue. The third is the Magdalen, NG 2615, catalogued by Davies 1968, pp. 150–1, as Netherlandish School. Although its support is Baltic oak (the rings are extremely wide, both boards are from the same tree and the last rings in both were formed in 1442: see Peter Klein’s report of 28 January 2006, in the NG dossier), the ground is calcium sulphate (a mixture of the dihydrate and anhydrite forms) and it is therefore unlikely to be Netherlandish. It will be catalogued as Spanish or Portuguese. The fourth is the Entombment, NG 1151, catalogued by Davies 1968, pp. 178–9, as ‘Style of “Ysenbrandt”’ (Adriaen Isenbrant). It is in fact a slightly damaged print of a well-known engraving by Schongauer ( B. 18). The painter who coloured the print adapted the landscape and included a free version of Marcantonio Raimondi’s engraved copy after Raphael’s Descent from the Cross ( B. 32). Marcantonio’s engraving has been dated around 1521. It seems overambitious to try to guess the nationality of the artist who coloured the print and more sensible to catalogue the coloured print as a version of a Schongauer and classify it as German, even if it may have been painted in the Low Countries. (Back to text.)

9. The Virgin and Child with an Angel in a Landscape, NG 2157, catalogued by Levey 1959, pp. 44–5, who thought that it was a fake, as ‘Ascribed to the German School’. It is here attributed to a late imitator of Rogier van der Weyden. (Back to text.)

10. NG 265 (workshop of Bellegambe), NG 264 (Albrecht Bouts and workshop), NG 266 (Master of the Prodigal Son) and NG 2157 (late imitator of Rogier van der Weyden). (Back to text.)

11. NG 655 (Benson), NG 656 (Gossart), NG 1888 (Gossart). (Back to text.)

12. NG 1094, Netherlandish (or English?) School. (Back to text.)

13. NG 715, NG 3664, NG 5769, NG 6282. (Back to text.)

14. NG Archive, HG NG 7/247, letters of 4 May 1900 (Buttery to Poynter, the Director) and 8 May 1900 (Buttery to Hawes Turner, the Keeper). (Back to text.)

15. Campbell 1998, pp. 18–35. (Back to text.)

16. Ibid. , pp. 29–31. (Back to text.)

17. The reverse of the wing of Saint Ambrose with Ambrosius van Engelen (NG 264), from the workshop of Albrecht Bouts; the reverse of the centre panel of the triptych of The Virgin and Child Enthroned (NG 2606), from the workshop of Pieter Coecke; and the reverses of the wings of the triptych of The Virgin and Child with Saints and Angels in a Garden (NG 1085), by a follower of Quinten Massys. (Back to text.)

18. The Female Head (NG 721) by the Master of the Female Half‐Lengths; the Young Man Praying (NG 1063) from the workshop of the Master of the Holy Blood; the Saint Jerome in a Rocky Landscape from the workshop of Patinir; and the Meeting at the Golden Gate (NG 4092) by Jean Hey. (Back to text.)

19. The Crucifixion (NG 718) by an associate of Jan de Beer and the Adoration of the Kings (NG 2155) after Joos van Cleve are the centre panels of triptychs; the wings without centre panels are the Heemskercks (NG 6508); the Donor (NG 1081) from the workshop of Quinten Massys; the Virgin standing in a Niche (NG 3901) and the Saint Luke painting the Virgin and Child (NG 3902), which are the two sides of the right wing of a triptych also from the Massys workshop. The Visitation (NG 1082) and the Flight into Egypt (NG 1084), from the workshop of Goossen van der Weyden are from an altarpiece from which two other panels have survived; while the panels by the Master of Saint Giles (NG 1419, NG 4681) are likewise from an altarpiece from which two others are known. (Back to text.)

20. For example, the ‘Ugly Duchess’ (NG 5769) by Quinten Massys is one of a pair; while the Susanna Stefan (NG 184) by Nicolas de Neufchâtel was almost certainly paired with a portrait of her husband Wolfgang Furter. (Back to text.)

21. Campbell 1998, pp. 7–9. (Back to text.)

22. Infrared reflectography was carried out using a Hamamatsu C2400 camera with an N2606 series infrared vidicon tube. The camera is fitted with a 36 mm lens to which a Kodak 87A Wratten filter has been attached to exclude visible light. The infrared reflectogram mosaics were assembled on a computer using Vips‐ip software. For further information about the software, see the Vips website at www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk. (Back to text.)

23. SIRIS (Scanning InfraRed Imaging System), which uses an indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) array sensor. Developed at the National Gallery in 2005 and in use until 2008. For further details about the camera, see David Saunders, Rachel Billinge, John Cupitt, Nick Atkinson and Haida Liang, ‘A New Camera for High‐Resolution Infrared Imaging of Works of Art’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 51, 2006, pp. 277–90. OSIRIS, which also contains an indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) sensor, has been in regular use from 2008. For further details about the camera, see www.opusinstruments.com/index.php. (Back to text.)

24. Jan Gossart, The Documentary Evidence, with a foreword by Maryan W. Ainsworth, Turnhout 2012. (Back to text.)

25. Alexandre Galand et al. , Catalogue of Early Netherlandish Painting: Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, The Flemish Primitives, VI, The Bernard van Orley Group, Brussels 2013. (Back to text.)

26. Hieronymus Bosch, Die Zeichnungen, Werkstatt und Nachfolge bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, Turnhout 2012. (Back to text.)

About this version

Version 3, generated from files LC_2014__16.xml dated 16/03/2025 and database__16.xml dated 14/03/2025 using stylesheet 16_teiToHtml_externalDb.xsl dated 03/01/2025. Structural mark-up applied to skeleton document in full; document updated to use external database of archival and bibliographic references; taster biography for Gossaert and entries for NG656, NG946, NG1689, NG1888, NG2211, NG2790 and NG2163 prepared for publication; print entries for NG713, NG1419 & NG4681, NG3556, NG3604, NG4092, NG4732, NG4744, NG5769, NG6508 and NG6585-NG6588 prepared for publication; taster entries for NG1689 and NG2790 and print entries for NG713, NG1419 & NG4681, NG3556, NG3604, NG4092, NG4732, NG4744, NG5769, NG6508 and NG6585-NG6588 proofread and corrected.

Cite this entry

Permalink (this version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIK-000B-0000-0000
Permalink (latest version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/0DG3-000B-0000-0000
Chicago style
Campbell, Lorne. “NG 713, The Virgin and Child in a Landscape”. 2014, online version 3, March 16, 2025. https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIK-000B-0000-0000.
Harvard style
Campbell, Lorne (2014) NG 713, The Virgin and Child in a Landscape. Online version 3, London: National Gallery, 2025. Available at: https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIK-000B-0000-0000 (Accessed: 19 March 2025).
MHRA style
Campbell, Lorne, NG 713, The Virgin and Child in a Landscape (National Gallery, 2014; online version 3, 2025) <https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIK-000B-0000-0000> [accessed: 19 March 2025]