Catalogue entry
Wolf Huber 1480/5–1553
NG 6550
Christ taking Leave of his Mother
, 2024
Extracted from:
Susan Foister; with Rachel Billinge, Marika Spring and Lea Viehweger; and contributions
by Lorne Campbell and Allison Goudie, The German Paintings before 1800 (London: National Gallery Global and Yale University Press, 2024).
© The National Gallery
Oil on wood (fir, identified), 95.5 × 68.2 cm
Provenance
In the collection of Edigna, Freifrau von Godin (born 1928), according to whom it had been inherited from her father Oskar, Freiherr von Riedheim (1884–1976).1 It was sold in 1993 to Jürgen Jung from whom it was bought by the National Gallery in 1995.
Related Works
-
(1) A drawing of a head of a woman (Karlsruhe; fig. 6) may have been used as the basis for one or more of the heads of the female figures.
Exhibitions
Technical Notes
The picture was cleaned and restored in 1995–6 at which time major panel repairs were carried out, including insertion of two narrow strips and one wider 2.1 cm band of seasoned pine where original wood had been lost, followed by reconstruction in the retouching of the missing areas of the composition (see below).2 The size given above includes these inserts. There are many small losses in the paint on the surviving original wood, the worst areas affected being the head and shoulders of the woman at the left edge, the lower part of the purple‐grey drapery of the woman at the left of the main group, the lower right part of the Virgin’s blue drapery and her right hand, the lower part of the shot green drapery of the figure supporting her, parts of which are also abraded, and the landscape and draperies on the narrow surviving strip of the board at the right edge. The footbridge and architecture have survived well (although the brown paint of the latter has probably darkened), as has the landscape around them and the foliage in the foreground, although the deep greens have probably also darkened over time. The deepest shadows of the green draperies and of the shot green, pink and yellow drapery of the woman supporting the Virgin have also discoloured. Red lake pigment in the pink and purple draperies has probably faded, the deepest shades of the latter also affected by darkening of the paint medium caused by the azurite present in the mixture. Similarly, the azurite‐containing paint of the Virgin’s drapery seems to have darkened, so the light and shade is now not so well defined.
The right‐hand part of the panel is missing. Slight chamfers on the back indicate that there has been only a little trimming and little if any loss of the paint at the left and bottom edges of the panel. The six original surviving boards of the support are fir (Abies sp.), with vertical grain, and are about 1.4 cm thick; only a narrow strip of the sixth board is still present at the right, the rest having been cut off. The second and third joins from the left and a split in the fifth plank just to the right of the fourth join had in the past opened up from top to bottom of the panel. Inconsistencies in compositional features, most notably in Christ’s hand, indicated that some wood had been lost along these joins and along the split, presumably planed away to neaten the edges before re‐glueing; the boards had been misaligned when this was done. During conservation in 1995–6, narrow strips of seasoned pine were inserted between the second and third boards (4 mm wide) and the third and fourth boards (2 mm wide), with a more substantial strip 2.1 cm wide where the split had occurred in board five, and the boards were realigned. Each board seems therefore originally to have been between 13 and 14 cm in width; based on a proposed reconstruction of the full composition (see Original Format and Function), it is assumed that the sixth narrow board was the same width and that there were two further, similar boards at the right, making a panel consisting of eight boards in total, about 110 cm wide.3 Dendrochronological analysis has established that the youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1508, the earliest possible felling date since for fir panels it was usual for only the bark to be removed. Assuming a minimum storage of two years gives a plausible creation date of 1510 upwards.4
Before painting, the knots and flaws in the wood were covered on the front with a paste of red lead in heat‐bodied linseed oil.5 The whole panel was coated – so thinly that the wood grain is quite prominent – in the same or a very similar mixture containing red lead with white lead carbonate that has either formed from alteration of the red lead or has been incorporated deliberately as lead white pigment.
There is extensive underdrawing made visible with infrared imaging (fig. 3). The drawing is freehand and vigorous, making use of characteristic, schematic marks such as dots, dashes, loops and flourishes, especially in the landscape. While the figures of the Holy Women show only slight changes made during painting, for example the enlargement of the Virgin’s headdress, the infrared reflectogram reveals that the details of their positioning were being worked out in the underdrawing. The underdrawing for the tower and landscape as painted is less easy to see but there is drawing for foliage, possibly a mountain, and a longer bridge with a handrail, above the painted bridge.
Analysis of a number of samples by GC–MS identified the medium, in every case, to be based on linseed oil. This oil was heat‐bodied in samples from the red lake‐containing paint of the Virgin’s sleeve, the pale blue sky, and the purple‐grey mantle of the Holy Woman on the left of the main group, while non‐heat‐bodied oil had been used in the green sleeve of the same woman, the green sleeve of the woman at the left edge and the dark brown of the gate tower at the upper edge.6
The purple‐grey mantle of the Holy Woman at the left of the main figure group is painted with mixtures of lead white tinted with azurite, red lake and purple mineral fluorite.7 The grey areas of the white headdresses of the Holy Women are made up of white mixed with carbon black. The Virgin’s blue mantle is painted with azurite [page 459] [page 460] mixed with varying amounts of lead white, with a little black in addition in some parts of the underpaint. The dress of the Holy Woman supporting the Virgin is a shot drapery made by underpainting in the mid‐tones and highlights with mixtures of yellow and red earth and sometimes a little black, modulating to blues containing azurite in the shadows. The highlights were then picked out with a pale salmon pink consisting of a mixture of vermilion and white and the rest was glazed with a transparent verdigris‐containing green (now appearing brown, especially in the shadows where it is thickest). The draperies of the woman at the left edge are similarly glazed, but remain recognisably green because of an opaque green underpaint of verdigris and lead‐tin yellow. The red cloak of the woman supporting the Virgin has an underpaint of vermilion mixed with red earth, glazed with a translucent red paint containing red lake pigment and colourless powdered glass as an additive.8 Analysis of the red lake showed that the dyestuff was extracted from the kermes insect.9
Wolf Huber, Christ taking Leave of his Mother, 1519. Oil on limewood, 38 × 28 cm. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna © KHM-Museumsverband
Detail of NG 6550, the figure on the bridge. © The National Gallery
Subject
The picture is a fragment, of which the focus is the highly dramatic group of Holy Women comforting the slumped figure of the Virgin Mary. On the far right the hand of the blessing Christ is visible, as is part of his red robe and his foot, but the rest of his figure has been lost. From these elements it is clear that the subject of the painting is Christ taking Leave of his Mother, popular in northern Europe in the early sixteenth century. It is not of biblical origin, but occurs in devotional texts such as the Pseudo‐Bonaventura Meditations on the Life of Christ: on hearing that Christ is to set out for Jerusalem and certain death Mary said, ‘My Son, I am as if dead to hear this, and my heart has abandoned me’.10 It was also a feature of the Life of Mary by Philipp the Carthusian, published in German, and was included in German Passion Plays.11 The subject is depicted in a similar manner in one of the National Gallery’s two pictures by Altdorfer (see NG 6463). In another of Huber’s paintings of this subject, dated 1519 (Vienna; fig. 1), the Virgin instead kneels, in the more traditional manner represented by Dürer in his woodcut from the Life of the Virgin series, published in 1511.
In the landscape background is a wooden footbridge which is attached to a tower or similar building on the left. A small male figure stands on the bridge, his tunic blown about by the wind (fig. 2): he may well be one of the apostles (who populate the landscape in Altdorfer’s version of the subject). If so, it is possible that other apostles were included on the right‐hand side of the picture, and that the scene extended some distance to the right (see reconstruction, fig. 4). In the landscape on the right, directly above Christ’s arm and to the right of two pollarded willows, are the crenellations and three windows of another building, while further distant, to the left of the willows, is another crenellated tower or building.
[page 461]
Infrared reflectogram of NG 6550. © The National Gallery
Reconstruction of the original composition by Jill Dunkerton. © The National Gallery
Original Format and Function
The composition is incomplete: little or no paint has been lost from the left and bottom edges, but it is clear that a certain amount of sky must have been lost from the top, although, as is characteristic of ‘Danube School’ artists, the tops of the trees were probably never intended to be visible. On the right‐hand side, only the hands, part of the robe and the ends of two toes of the figure of Christ are preserved; in addition, a strip about 2.1 cm wide is missing along a split in the fifth board from the left running through Christ’s right hand, together with narrower strips along the second and third joins from the left, all replaced with seasoned pine during the most recent panel treatment, with the missing parts of the composition reconstructed in the retouching (see Technical Notes). The original width of the full panel has been estimated by assuming all the six surviving boards, of which only a thin strip of the sixth still remains, were roughly the same width as the board at the left edge, with two more boards added at the right to accommodate the proposed reconstructed composition (fig. 4).12
NG 6550 is not painted on the reverse. Although the scale and subject of the painting suggest it might have formed part of an altarpiece, the subject of Christ’s departure was regarded as particularly suitable for epitaph paintings commemorating the dead, and this may well have been its function, conceivably prepared at some speed given the bold and vigorous handling of the paint, and perhaps in connection with Huber’s court duties for Ernst of Bavaria, prince‐bishop of Passau.13 The composition as reconstructed would allow for the presence of one or more donor figures or coats of arms in the lower right‐hand corner.
Attribution and Date
The panel, which was unpublished before its acquisition by the National Gallery in 1995, is painted in Huber’s mature style, characterised by slightly elongated figures with elaborately bunched drapery.14 Similar landscape backgrounds, in which Huber excelled, are seen in the panels of the Life of the Virgin, as well as in a number of drawings by him. Some of these include details very close to those of the painting, for example the Gothic arched building, the wooden bridge, and the tiny pollarded willows on the far right: similar paired willows leaning in the reverse direction can be seen in a drawing in Berlin dated by Winzinger to about 1515–17.15 The manner in which the pollarded branches are attached to the trunk in the tiny painted detail is reflected in the drawing of willows by a stream in Budapest, dated 1514.16 Similar bridges are seen in two drawings of around 1515.17 A similar bridge and building can be seen in a drawing at Vienna.18 The vigorous manner of painting foliage, using strong highlights to create dense, radiating and rounded arrangements of leaves can be closely paralleled by coloured studies of foliage on dark prepared paper in Budapest dated 1517 and 1519.19 Similar treatment of foliage can again be seen in the paintings of 1519 in the Louvre, at Bregenz and at Vienna (fig. 1).20 Small figures painted dark to light, which parallel the small figure in the background of NG 6550 who may be an apostle, are seen both in the Louvre picture, where the distant middle ground is populated by a man with a dog (almost entirely painted in a white which has become semi‐transparent), and in the shutters of the Saint Anne Altarpiece at Bregenz.
The composition itself is very similar to that of the 1524 Louvre Lamentation and the Feldkirch Lamentation dated 1521 but in reverse (fig. 5): in the latter Christ sinks back, arm drooping, whereas in NG 6550 it is the Virgin who adopts this pose. The tiered manner in which the figures of the women are arranged, each head subtly different, is echoed in the Louvre and the Feldkirch paintings. The two female figures on the left of NG 6550 show close similarities to the figure of the Virgin showing distress at the circumcision of the infant Christ (Bregenz), part of the Saint Anne Altarpiece, as well as to the grieving female figures in both Lamentations and in the small Christ taking Leave at Vienna.21 A drawing of a head of a grieving woman at Karlsruhe (fig. 6) is extremely close to more than one of the female heads in the National Gallery picture, that on the extreme [page 463] left in particular.22 This drawing in turn can be compared to the female heads in the Visitation in Munich, as well to those in the two Lamentations and the Bregenz Circumcision.23 The female head on the extreme left‐hand of the drawing of a Lamentation at Bautzen dated 1525 is also very similar to the female head on the extreme left of NG 6550.24
Huber also depicted the subject of Christ taking Leave of his Mother in a painting of 1519 in Vienna (fig. 1).25 There it is treated far more conventionally, with the Virgin kneeling as Christ makes his farewell before entering Jerusalem. The depiction of the Virgin swooning – as she does in Crucifixion scenes – is also found in Altdorfer’s Christ taking Leave of his Mother in the National Gallery, which probably dates from around 1515–20 (NG 6463, see pp. 84–93). It may well be that Altdorfer’s composition inspired Huber to treat the subject in this dramatic and novel way, but it cannot be assumed that Huber’s composition simply followed Altdorfer’s.26 The figures of the Louvre painting of 1519, however, are not dissimilar to those in NG 6550, suggesting that the two are not distant in date.
Dendrochronological analysis (see Technical Notes) has shown the painting must post‐date 1508 and has suggested a date from 1510 onwards. The parallels enumerated above with drawings of the latter part of the second decade of the sixteenth century suggest a date of around 1520. The elongated figures of the Virgin and Holy Women differentiate themselves from the slightly squatter figures of some works of the early 1520s. They show close similarities with a drawing of the Resurrection of Lazarus with donors, dated 1519, a study for an epitaph.27 The figures here are notably elongated, and there also appear to be compositional connections with the subject of NG 6550: the elongated thighs of Lazarus parallel those of the Virgin and the long pointing figure of Christ recalls that preserved in NG 6550. On stylistic grounds therefore the painting would appear to date from about 1519–20.
Select Bibliography
National Gallery Report, April 1995–March 1996; Billinge 1997.
Wolf Huber, Lamentation, 1521. Vorarlberg, Austria, St Nicholas Cathedral, Feldkirch. St Nicholas Cathedral, Feldkirch, Vorarlberg, Austria. Photo © Martin Siepmann/imageBroker/agefotostock
Wolf Huber, Lamenting Woman. Black and white chalk on pink‐toned paper, 15 × 19.1 cm. Karlsruhe, Staatliche Kunsthalle. Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe
Detail from NG 6550. © The National Gallery
Notes
1 Information from Freifrau von Godin dated 13 March 1995 in the Gallery acquisition files. The painting had evidently originally been acquired by the family of Freiherr von Riedheim and Freiherr von Pfetten‐Füll from the descendants of an eighteenth‐century bishop of Regensburg following the sale of Schloss Windach, Landsberg am Lech, Bavaria (built 1610, sold in 1825). (Back to text.)
2 Billinge 1997, pp. 102–4. (Back to text.)
3 Ibid. , pp. 103–4. (Back to text.)
4 Report of Dr Peter Klein, 7 April 1995. Allowing for a minimum storage time of two years the panel is not likely to have been made before 1510, and a date rather later in the decade is more probable. (Back to text.)
5 Billinge 1997, p. 111 and report cited in note 6, below. See also Wolff 2008, p. 429, on sealing German panels with red lead. (Back to text.)
6 R. White, ‘Analysis of Paint Medium’, unpublished report, National Gallery Scientific Department, no date. The GC–MS results were as follows: purple‐grey mantle A/P 1.1, P/S 1.7, A/Sub 3.6; red sleeve A/P 0.7, P/S 1.75, A/Sub 2.7; blue sky Unclear, corrected P/S ~2.0; green sleeve A/P 1.3, P/S 1.8, A/Sub 4.5; dark brown A/P 1.1, P/S 1.4, A/Sub 4.5. (Back to text.)
7 Spring 2000. The fluorite was first identified using SEM–EDX analysis by Robert Fuchs and Mark Richter, Fachhochschule Köln; see correspondence in Scientific Department file. (Back to text.)
8 Spring 2000. (Back to text.)
9 J. Kirby, ‘ HPLC Analysis of Dyestuffs’, unpublished report, National Gallery Scientific Department, 19 August 2014 (analysed in 2006); the results indicated dyestuff from Kermes vermilio (Planchon, 1864). Published in Kirby, Saunders and Spring 2006, pp. 236–43; see ibid. , Table 2 for the protein content of the red lake pigment, detected by FTIR microscopy by Catherine Higgitt, which suggested preparation from dyed wool shearings. (Back to text.)
10
Pseudo‐Bonaventura (1961)
Ragusa and Green 1961
, p. 309. (Back to text.)
11 In the Augsburg play Christ blesses his mother, saying: ‘My heavenly Father took pains to order me to follow His will. Thus, beloved mother, I must go to Jerusalem. You shall stay with your friends and pass your time with them. Thus I give you my blessing – may the heavenly father preserve you’; cited in Smith 1983, pp. 17; see also Altdorfer, NG 6463 in the present catalogue. (Back to text.)
12 This reconstruction by Jill Dunkerton was published in Billinge 1997, p. 109, fig. 29. See also ibid. , p. 112, note 24, explaining that the figures of Peter and John are based on figures of the same apostles in a drawing formerly in Rotterdam, Winzinger 1979, vol. 2, pl. 55. (Back to text.)
13 On the function see p. 89, above. (Back to text.)
14 Gisela Goldberg of the Alte Pinakothek, Munich expressed the opinion at the time of acquisition that the painting was the work of Huber. (Back to text.)
15 Winzinger 1979, vol. 1, p. 90, no. 46. See also pp. 82–4, 87–8, 90–1, 96, 98–9, nos 22–5, 37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 63, 68, 69, 89. (Back to text.)
16 Ibid. , p. 83, no. 24. (Back to text.)
17 Ibid. , p. 88, no. 41 (Wrocław) and pp. 88–9, no. 42 (Munich). (Back to text.)
18 Ibid. , p. 81, no. 19; see also p. 91, no. 48, a bridge and landscape of about 1518 (Munich). (Back to text.)
19 Ibid. , pp. 89–90, no. 45 (Budapest), 1517; pp. 96–7, no. 63 (Budapest), 1519. (Back to text.)
20 Ibid. , p. 171, no. 277 (Vienna); pp. 175–6, no. 288 (Louvre); pp. 174–5, no. 287 (Bregenz). (Back to text.)
21 Winzinger 1979, vol. 1, p. 174, no. 283. The Virgin in the Circumcision from the Saint Anne Altarpiece, 1521; also the drawing of a female head on the left margin of a Lamentation drawing at Bautzen dated 1525: Roller and Sander 2014, pp. 110–11, no. 48; Winzinger 1979, vol. 1, pp. 102–3, no. 73; Rose 1977, pp. 162–4. For discussion of underdrawing in NG 6550, the Saint Anne Altarpiece and the Vienna painting, see Koller 2007. (Back to text.)
22 Ibid. , vol. 1, p. 104, no. 76, inv. VIII 2676‐7r‐2. (Back to text.)
23 Ibid. , pp. 179–80, no. 294 (Munich); pp. 175–6, no. 288 (Louvre); pp. 174–5, no. 287 (Bregenz); p. 171, no. 277 (Vienna). (Back to text.)
24 Roller and Sander 2014, pp. 110–11, no. 48; Winzinger 1979, vol. 1, pp. 102–3, no. 73, Rose 1977, pp. 162–4. (Back to text.)
25 Winzinger 1979, vol. 1, p. 171, no. 277. (Back to text.)
26 The relationship between the two is discussed in Wood 1993, pp. 219–24, and see also pp. 161–6, 261ff. (Back to text.)
27 Winzinger 1979, vol. 1, p. 132, no. 147. (Back to text.)
Abbreviations
- FTIR
- Fourier transform infrared microscopy
- GC–MS
- Gas chromatography linked to mass‐spectrometry
- HPLC
- High‐performance liquid chromatography
List of archive references cited
- London, National Gallery, Archive, acquisition files for NG 6550: Freifrau von Godin, 13 March 1995
- London, National Gallery, Archive, dossier for NG 6550: Peter Klein, report, 7 April 1995
- London, National Gallery, Scientific Department, scientific files for NG 6550: R. White, analysis of paint medium, no date
List of references cited
- Baum et al. 2014
- Baum, Katja von, et al., Let the Material Talk: Technology of Late‐medieval Cologne Panel Painting, London 2014
- Billinge et al. 1997
- Billinge, Rachel, Lorne Campbell, Jill Dunkerton, Susan Foister, Jo Kirby, Jennie Pilc, Ashok Roy, Marika Spring and Raymond White, ‘A double‐sided panel by Stephan Lochner’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 1997, 18, 6–55; ‘Methods and Materials of Northern European Painting in the National Gallery, 1400–1550’, 56–67; ‘Wolf Huber’s Christ taking Leave of his Mother’, 98–112
- Campbell 1998
- Campbell, Lorne, National Gallery Catalogues: The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Schools, London 1998
- Campbell 2014a
- Campbell, Lorne, National Gallery Catalogues: The Sixteenth‐Century Netherlandish Paintings with French Paintings before 1600, London 2014
- Herring 2019
- Herring, Sarah, National Gallery Catalogues: The Nineteenth‐Century French Paintings, Volume I, The Barbizon School, London 2019
- Kirby, Saunders and Spring 2006
- Kirby, Jo, David Saunders and Marika Spring, ‘Proscribed pigments in Northern European Renaissance paintings and the case of Paris red’, in The Object in Context: crossing conservation boundaries, eds David Saunders, Joyce H. Townsend and Sally Woodcock (Munich International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works congress, 28 August – 1 September 2006), London 2006, 236–43
- Koller 2007
- Koller, Manfred, ‘Zum Verhältnis von Zeichnung und Unterzeichning in Gemälden Wolf Hubers’, Österreichisches Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege, 2007, 61, no. 2/3, 298–306
- Levey 1959
- Levey, Michael, National Gallery Catalogues: The German School, London 1959
- National Gallery Report
- National Gallery, The National Gallery Report: Trafalgar Square, London [various dates]
- Ragusa and Green 1961
- Ragusa, Isa and Rosalie B. Green, eds, Meditations on the Life of Christ: an Illustrated Manuscript of the Fourteenth Century, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Ms. Ital., 115, trans. I. Ragusa, Princeton, New Jersey 1961 (paperback edn, 1977)
- Roller and Sander 2014
- Roller, Stefan and Jochen Sander, Fantastische Welten: Albrecht Altdorfer und das Expressive in der Kunst um 1500 (exh. cat., Städel Museum and Liebighaus, Frankfurt; Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna), Munich 2014
- Rose 1977
- Rose, Patricia, ‘Wolf Huber Studies: Aspects of Renaissance Thought and Practice in Danube School Painting’ (thesis), Columbia University, 1973 (reprint, New York 1977)
- Smith 1983
- Smith, Alastair, Acquisition in Focus: Albrecht Altdorfer: Christ Taking Leave of his Mother (exh. booklet, National Gallery, London), London 1983
- Spring 2000
- Spring, Marika, ‘Occurrences of the Purple Pigment Fluorite on Paintings in the National Gallery’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 2000, 21, 20–7
- Winzinger 1979
- Winzinger, Franz, Wolf Huber: Das Gesamtwerk, 2 vols, Munich and Zurich 1979
- Wolff 2008
- Wolff, Martha, Northern European and Spanish Paintings before 1600 in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Collection, Chicago 2008
- Wood 1993b
- Wood, Christopher S., Albrecht Altdorfer and the Origins of Landscape, London 1993
List of exhibitions cited
- London 1996, National Gallery
- London, National Gallery, New Acquisition: Huber’s Christ taking Leave of his Mother, 1996
- London 2014, National Gallery b
- London, National Gallery, Strange Beauty: Masters of the German Renaissance, 2014
The Scope and Organisation of the Catalogue
These volumes represent the third catalogue of the National Gallery’s early northern European paintings, following those of fifteenth‐century early Netherlandish paintings and sixteenth‐century Netherlandish and French paintings by Lorne Campbell published in 1998 and 2014 respectively. When the present series of National Gallery catalogues was established it was agreed that there might be variations between the approach and organisation of one catalogue and another, depending on the type of paintings involved. Hence although broad categories of information such as provenance were standard inclusions they occur in different places in different catalogues. As it seemed reasonable for the catalogues concerning early Northern paintings to take similar approaches to the presentation of information which had much in common, I have as far as possible followed the approach of Lorne Campbell in his catalogues of early Netherlandish and French paintings. One important exception occurs in the ordering of works by the same painter: I have followed more recent cataloguing practice where the order is chronological rather than by National Gallery inventory number.
During the period in which these catalogues of early Netherlandish and German paintings have been prepared it has been agreed that a few paintings should move from one catalogue to the other. In the 1959 National Gallery catalogue of German paintings by Michael Levey the Virgin and Child in a Landscape (NG 2157), originally part of the Krüger collection, was attributed to an unknown German artist, but in Lorne Campbell’s 2014 volume it is now catalogued as Netherlandish. Conversely, entries on two paintings originally believed to be Netherlandish, Edzard the Great (NG 2209) and The Entombment after Schongauer (NG 1151), were originally compiled by Lorne Campbell for the sixteenth‐century Netherlandish catalogue, but after concluding they were instead of German origin he kindly allowed them to be published in the present volumes. Two painters with Netherlandish origins or Netherlandish connections are included in this catalogue as German. In the case of the painter known as the Master of the Saint Bartholomew Altarpiece there is evidence within the paintings (see his biography, p. 687) that the artist had strong connections to Utrecht in the northern Netherlands as well as clearly having patrons in Cologne. However, this publication continues the Gallery’s decision in the 1959 catalogue by Michael Levey to place the Master within German painting, as is conventional in other German collections. Similarly, the painting by Netherlandish‐born Bartholomaeus Spranger which was acquired some time after the publication of the 1959 catalogue is presented here as German, since Spranger spent his entire career in Germany and Prague. As explained in the essay on the history of the collection (pp. 17–37), the scope of the paintings catalogued here extends to the German‐speaking lands, and hence includes works made in what is now Austria, such as those by Michael Pacher and by two anonymous artists. The chronological span of this catalogue extends to 1800 as it has always been envisaged that the National Gallery’s nineteenth and early twentieth‐century paintings, from whatever part of Europe, will be catalogued separately as a whole; the first of these volumes, The Barbizon School by Sarah Herring, was published in 2019. One work discussed in Levey’s 1959 catalogue does not appear here: the drawing by Mengs which was transferred to the British Museum in 1994. It should be noted that entries on the paintings by Lucas Cranach the Elder were originally published in 2015 on the Gallery’s website; they have been updated as necessary and added to them is the Gallery’s most recent German acquisition, the small Venus and Cupid (NG 6680).
The catalogue is organised alphabetically by name of artist, or if the name is unknown, by geographical region, in some cases as unspecific as German, in others North or South German, with suggestions in the entry as to a more precise geographical origin. Many of the artists included here have not been securely identified with documented painters and are therefore called only by their traditional art‐historical nomenclature as ‘Master of’, although attempts to identify them with documented artists are discussed as appropriate. The relevant catalogue entries present important new information concerning the identification of the Master of Cappenberg as Jan Baegert: these entries are therefore presented under the latter name. However in the case of the Master of Liesborn the putative identification of the artist as Johann von Soest – although persuasive – does not rest on such secure grounds; the paintings discussed in these entries are therefore presented as by the Master of Liesborn, and the possible identification of the artist is discussed in the accompanying biography.
Entries relating to a single artist are arranged chronologically. Paintings which are signed or can be securely associated with the artist are grouped in chronological order before those which can be attributed to the artist with assistance from the workshop or to the artist’s workshop alone. Finally come paintings which appear to be the work of a painter outside the workshop practising in the style of the artist, and then paintings which are copies of works by the artist. In a very few cases I have expressed room for doubt concerning an attribution by the use of ‘Probably by’; I have not used ‘Attributed to’ or ‘Ascribed to’, as these phrases appear to relate to the past opinions of others rather than those of the catalogue author.
[page 12]Where relevant, each entry is preceded by a short biography. Here I have endeavoured to draw attention to the principal documents concerning the artist’s life and works, on which arguments for the dating and attribution of particular paintings may be based, as well as drawing attention to works which are signed, signed and dated, or otherwise documented. The biographies include footnotes so that the reader may fairly readily access the sources for the documents; I have made efforts to include the most recent publications as well as the most accurate.
There are no changes to titles used in the 1959 catalogue and in subsequent National Gallery publications other than in the very few cases where new information has made this essential.
Each entry is preceded by information on support, medium, sizes of support and painted surface (where different), presented according to the latest National Gallery protocols. More on the ways in which this information has been obtained and presented is available in the Note on the Technical Examination of the Paintings (p. 13).
If a work bears a date this is specified, but there has been no attempt in the headmatter to provide a speculative date or range of dates: questions of dating are addressed at the end of each entry. Any additional material or clarification concerning information in the headmatter is addressed in the Technical Notes in each entry.
Although in most cases paintings have been cleaned since the 1959 catalogue this has not always resulted in inscriptions being clarified, and those of the 1959 catalogue are still in most cases the best guide. However in one case, the portrait by Bartholomeus Bruyn (NG 2605), an entire damaged inscription was painted over and has now been revealed. Inscriptions present on the reverses of the paintings are described in the entry’s Technical Notes.
Information on provenance follows the headmatter: this is frequently vital for the understanding of arguments concerning the status of the work, particularly where it was originally in an ecclesiastical setting. In the case of some provenances these are presented in a shorter form, but where it has been necessary to give explanations and alternatives these are in a fuller format. In the case of one work, Holbein’s Christina of Denmark, a full provenance is given but an Appendix to the catalogue entry gives a narrative of the painting’s acquisition in 1909, which has received much attention, so the facts are usefully gathered here. I have attempted whenever possible to provide the life dates of those owners mentioned in the provenance and very brief descriptions of their occupations.
Lists of related works include full details wherever possible, including prints and drawings. The list of exhibitions also includes long‐term loans. Each entry ends with a brief select bibliography which includes references to the 1959 Levey catalogue, references to the National Gallery Annual Review for paintings acquired after 1959 as well as references to noteworthy discussion of the paintings in significant monographs and exhibition catalogues.
Full technical notes are included on each painting: the methodology for the examination of the paintings is set out in the note on pp. 13–14. Information on the conservation history of each painting before its entry into the Gallery’s collection is included where available, along with that on significant conservation treatments by the Gallery. Where the painting’s frame is integral or original this is discussed in these notes, but I have not sought to give information on frames which replaced the original other than in the exceptional cases where this might throw light on the painting’s history. Infrared reflectograms and X‐radiographs of each painting are included wherever possible, except when the treatment or condition of the painting – for example backing with balsawood – means that these images do not yield any useful information.
I have endeavoured to ensure that the information presented in each catalogue entry is clearly presented and accessible to non‐specialist readers. The entries make use of headings which are intended to assist the reader to locate specific information and are organised as follows. Each entry starts with an account of what can be seen and of the subject matter. Excellent zooming images are available on the Gallery’s website in addition to the photographs and photomicrographs published here. However, I have aimed to clarify and answer questions of subject and action that might remain – particularly in relation to details that might seem obscure or be missed, for example the pilgrim hat badges worn in the Master of Saint Ursula’s painting of Saint Lawrence (NG 3665) or the parrot’s head on the sword in Liss’s Judith and Holofernes (NG 4597). The most extensive descriptions belong to the entry on Holbein’s ‘Ambassadors’ (NG 1314) where any attempt to elucidate the painting must rely on these being as precise as possible. There follows an analysis of the function of the works, relating it where possible to what is known of its origins in Provenance.
Finally, attribution and date are discussed. Where a painting is not signed reference is made to stylistic similarities to works which are documented or otherwise securely associated with the artist. In the earlier part of the period current opinion concerning the operation of workshops (discussed in the essay, pp. 39–59) suggests a degree of collaboration between workshops as well as a grouping of paintings under the name of an artist which does not necessarily indicate the painter’s individual involvement. These issues are discussed in the entry. In the matter of dating, apart from biographical information, in a number of cases discussions can be based on interpretation of dendrochronological data. In some cases dating is still speculative and can only be based on stylistic criteria. Captions to images only include dates which are recorded or documented. New attributions for a number of the paintings are listed in the table on p. 973.
A Note on the Technical Examination of the Paintings
The technical notes preceding the main part of each entry form the basis of understanding physical aspects of each work, including not only processes of making but also conservation history. Starting with the initial phase of the cataloguing programme in 1991, every painting was brought to the conservation studios and examined in the same ways as for the other northern European paintings catalogues. The paintings were carefully measured, the supports were examined, the surface was studied with a stereomicroscope to provide observations on technique and materials and photomicrographs were made. Observations built on existing records of conservation treatments and earlier examinations, including X‐radiographs, infrared and other technical imaging, as well as reports on paint sample analysis, all of which were reviewed. Further imaging was then carried out – including infrared reflectography – and selected paint samples were taken to answer specific questions that had arisen about layer structures, pigments and paint binding media. Existing paint samples were re‐examined at the same time.
In the period of time that has elapsed since the initial examinations in the early 1990s the technology available has advanced considerably. Wherever possible the paintings have been re‐examined to take advantage of new methods to improve imaging and analyses and to address unanswered questions. Some paintings have been treated in the Conservation Department in the intervening period, so have been revisited, and others have been part of other projects that have generated new research. In bringing this catalogue to completion this more recent work has been incorporated wherever appropriate. In addition, new high‐resolution colour images have been made of almost every work, existing X‐radiography plates have been digitised and mosaiced to the latest standards, new digital infrared images and digital photomicrographs have been made. The most recent X‐radiographs have been made with a new direct digital system, used for a small number of works.1 In most cases, the effect of stretcher bars and cradles on the image has been digitally reduced through further processing to make the images clearer. For one painting (NG 3662), macro X‐ray fluorescence scanning (MA‐XRF) was carried out.2
The measurements given at the head of each catalogue entry are almost always those of the original support, including original integral frame where relevant, with a few works where non‐original additions are included in the sizes given because they are painted to extend the composition; unpainted non‐original additions are instead described in the text. Measurements of the painted surface are also given where they are different to the support size. The supports were carefully examined to describe their construction and any evidence of alterations or trimming – especially important for panels that are from deconstructed altarpieces. Dendrochronological analysis was carried out by Peter Klein, who was also responsible for most of the wood identifications. The full results are in the reports kept on file; in the entry only the youngest heartwood ring is given, followed by an earliest creation date and a plausible creation date based on the current statistical assumptions used for sapwood and storage time.3 Any inscriptions, seals, numbers or other significant marks on the reverse were noted. The edges of the painting were described and studied to understand whether there was evidence that a work originally had an engaged or integral frame, and also to search for any surviving traces of paint with which the frame may have been decorated.
The more recent infrared examinations have been carried out using one of three cameras with digital sensors based on indium‐gallium‐arsenide (InGaAs).4 For paint samples, the preparatory layers, pigment mixtures and layer structures were examined by optical microscopy and analysis was undertaken by energy dispersive X‐ray analysis in the scanning electron microscope (SEM‐EDX), X‐ray powder diffraction and attenuated total reflectance – Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopic imaging (ATR‐FTIR). The dyestuffs in red lake pigments were studied with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) where there was sufficient sample, and also by microspectrophotometry. Paint binding media were identified by Gas Chromatography (GC), Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS) and the complementary technique of FTIR microscopy in transmission mode.
The conservation history as far as it is known is summarised briefly in the technical notes, incorporated with a short comment on condition, concentrating on significant paint losses, interventions or changes on ageing that most affect the current appearance and are important in understanding the artist’s original intention. The information then given about support, preparation layers, underdrawing, pigments and media is gained from an integrated interpretation of the results from the various methods of examination. Particular attention is given to changes in the composition during underdrawing and painting as they relate closely to the creative processes of the artists, and also to observations that serve to inform the description given in the main body of the entry. In almost every case the infrared images are illustrated, as are the X‐radiographs, and a significant number of the photomicrographs are also included; the choice has been made to not include any other technical images or detailed results, which can all be found in reports in the Conservation and Scientific department files.
[page [14]]Notes
1 The XRis Dx‐80‐G3 was installed at the National Gallery in September 2021. This high resolution purpose‐built direct digital X‐radiography system was designed for imaging paintings and has a micro‐focus x‐ray tube and an area detector on a moving gantry that scans over the painting. The areas captured are then mosaiced to produce the final image. (Back to text.)
2 Macro‐XRF scanning was carried out with a Bruker M6 JETSTREAM macro‐XRF scanner (with a 60 mm2 XFlash® silicon drift X‐ray detector) on six areas of the painting and frame mainly to investigate the metal leaf composition. The data was examined and processed using both the Bruker M6 JETSTREAM software and DataMuncher/PyMCA in an attempt to obtain element maps that were as representative as possible. (Back to text.)
3 For the methodology see the contribution by Katja von Baum and Peter Klein in Baum 2014, pp. 21–7. (Back to text.)
4 Infrared reflectography was initially carried out using a Hamamatsu C2400 camera with an N2606 series infrared vidicon tube. The three digital infrared systems, which all use indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) sensors, are: 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; OSIRIS, which was in regular use from 2008; and Apollo which has been the main camera in use since 2019. For further details about OSIRIS and Apollo see www.opusinstruments.com/cameras. (Back to text.)
Hans Holbein the Younger, ‘The Ambassadors’ (NG 1314), detail (© The National Gallery, London)
The German‐speaking lands and neighbouring regions, showing places mentioned in the text. Artwork: Martin Lubikowski, ML Design
About this version
Version 2, generated from files SF_2024__16.xml dated 12/03/2025 and database__16.xml dated 12/03/2025 using stylesheet 16_teiToHtml_externalDb.xsl dated 03/01/2025. Document created from press‐ready PDF document and existing ‘taster’ HTML pages; structural mark-up applied to skeleton document in full; ‘taster’ entries for NG1925, NG3922 and NG6344, and print entries for NG705, NG706, NG722, NG1014, NG1314, NG2475, NG4597, NG5786, NG6463, NG6470, NG6540, NG6550, NG6563, NG6568 and NG6647, prepared for publication; ‘taster’ entry for NG6344 and print entries for NG705, NG706, NG722, NG1014, NG1314, NG2475, NG4597, NG5786, NG6463, NG6470, NG6540, NG6550, NG6563, NG6568 and NG6647 proofread and corrected.
Cite this entry
- Permalink (this version)
- https://data.ng.ac.uk/0ECI-000B-0000-0000
- Permalink (latest version)
- https://data.ng.ac.uk/0DTS-000B-0000-0000
- Chicago style
- Foister, Susan. “NG 6550, Christ taking Leave of his Mother”. 2024, online version 2, March 13, 2025. https://data.ng.ac.uk/0ECI-000B-0000-0000.
- Harvard style
- Foister, Susan (2024) NG 6550, Christ taking Leave of his Mother. Online version 2, London: National Gallery, 2025. Available at: https://data.ng.ac.uk/0ECI-000B-0000-0000 (Accessed: 20 March 2025).
- MHRA style
- Foister, Susan, NG 6550, Christ taking Leave of his Mother (National Gallery, 2024; online version 2, 2025) <https://data.ng.ac.uk/0ECI-000B-0000-0000> [accessed: 20 March 2025]