Michael Pacher active about 1462; died 1498
NG 5786 
The Virgin and Child Enthroned with Angels and Saints

Susan Foister, 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).

Oil on wood (stone pine, identified), 41.8 × 40.6 cm, painted surface 41.1 × 39.9 cm

Provenance

The painting was acquired by the art historian George Adhemar Simonson (1866–1938) in around 1913–14; it was said to have been in the possession of a family from Rovereto near Bozen (Bolzano), probably the Novelli family.¹ It was bequeathed to the National Gallery by his sister, Miss Anna S.H. Simonson (died 1947), in 1947.²

Exhibitions

Burlington Fine Arts Club 1932–3 (29) as by Pacher; Manchester 1961 (21) as Circle of Michael Pacher; Krems 1967 (36) as Circle of Michael Pacher; Neustift (Novacella) 1998 (29) as Workshop of Pacher.

Technical Notes

NG 5786 was cleaned and restored in 1948–9 and again in 1997–8. The painting is in good condition with only a few very small losses, mainly in the red paint of Saint Michael’s cloak and wings and in the inlaid tracery of the central canopy; there is a larger loss in the centre near the lower edge. There is some abrasion, affecting mainly the thinly glazed cast shadows and the marbled floor tiles in the foreground.

The support is of stone pine (Pinus cembra), wrongly identified as silver fir (Abies alba) in the 1959 National Gallery catalogue.³ The panel, which is 12 mm thick, is constructed from two vertical boards; the join, 12.1 cm from the right edge, is visible in the X‐radiograph running through the angel on the right. There is a very neat square inlay apparent on the reverse lying approximately in the centre of the larger board, which does not appear to extend through the full thickness of the panel to the front.

The reverse is painted with an imitation porphyry or coloured marble pattern of black base colour with spatters of red earth and lead white and veins painted with red earth; it has suffered from flaking in the centre and lower‐left corner (fig. 1). The white ground beneath this marbling consists of dolomite (calcium magnesium carbonate). There is a barb and unpainted wood at the edges, indicating that a frame was in place before the back was prepared for painting, except at the left and along the left part of the top where the panel has been trimmed.

On the obverse there is a canvas layer beneath the ground covering most of the panel surface but not extending over the bottom part; the canvas weave is clearly visible in the X‐radiograph (fig. 2). The ground contains chalk in a glue medium and is applied in a thick layer, presumably to allow for the carving of the decorative relief pattern in the gilded arches behind the figures.⁴ A white priming is visible from examination of the surface under magnification. As on the back, there is exposed wood at the edges resulting from removal of an engaged frame; these unpainted edges are of variable width, indicating the panel has been trimmed to differing degrees on all sides. There are traces of a barb at the edge of the ground and paint all round except for the right edge, which has been cut (also evident from examining the back): here a false barb and unpainted edge has been created by scraping away a little ground and paint, probably no more than 5 mm. There are traces of gold leaf at the top and bottom edges trapped under the original paint, presumably from the decoration of the original frame, indicating it was gilded before the painting was completed. There are incised lines at the tops of the pillars to the left of the bishop‐saint, marking out the areas to be carved and gilded.

Some underdrawing is visible through the paint where it is thinner or more translucent; for example in the red lake shadows of Saint Michael’s cloak where closely spaced hatching indicates the modelling of the drapery folds, and in the lower part of the figure of a soul in the scales (fig. 3). Such lines seemed to be invisible during examination with infrared reflectography, suggesting iron gall ink may have been used (fig. 4).

The relief pattern in the background behind the arches was created by carving deeply into the ground. The gold leaf is applied on a dark brown, almost black bole consisting of calcium carbonate with carbon black, some iron oxide and other silicaceous minerals. The haloes are also carved and gilded using the same bole; the shape of the Virgin’s crown, which overlaps the halo, has also been carved, with the pearls and gems then painted on top of the gold leaf (fig. 5). The Virgin’s halo has been drawn with compasses. The gold elsewhere is mordant gilding; the gold leaf has been [page 803] [page 804] adhered with a mordant that appears translucent golden brown under surface examination with a stereomicroscope, visible in areas where the gold is worn. This mordant gilding was applied directly on the priming in the morse (fig. 6) and border of Saint Michael’s cloak, the balance and scale pans, the bishop’s crosier and the metalwork on his book (fig. 7). Some other mordant‐gilded details are instead applied on paint, for example the gilded parts of Saint Michael’s sword, the eyes and claws of the devil at his feet, and the ribs of the vaulting under the canopies. All the mordant gilding has details painted in [page 805] black and lead‐tin yellow over the gold, and in Saint Michael’s cloak also pearls and coloured gems.

The paint medium was identified as linseed oil by GC–MS analysis of samples from white paint in the canopy and green paint from a floor tile, with the white having been partially heat‐bodied and the green containing a little pine resin in addition.⁵

The architecture is white with detailing in a distinctive purple colour made by mixing lead white with purple fluorite.⁶ In the canopy above the Virgin, there are pink panels within the open parts of the tracery, painted with red lake and white, while the corresponding areas in the canopies above the other main figures are painted in green (lead‐tin yellow, verdigris and possibly malachite). The partially visible panels at the very top, above the canopies, are painted to represent coloured stone or marble in various colours. The blue used for the vaulting of the underside of the canopies contains high quality azurite of large particle size. The green marble tiles in the foreground have patches on them of a translucent paint consisting of verdigris in oil. The golden yellow tiles are a mixture of lead‐tin yellow and yellow ochre.

Saint Michael’s cloak has an opaque underpaint composed mainly of vermilion (possibly with a little red lake) covered with a red lake glaze. What appears to be a black border, visible at the bottom left, is discoloured azurite‐containing paint, probably obscured by some repaint. The paint of his armour consists of a mixture of black and white, with a good deal of azurite. The devil under his feet is painted with a first layer containing malachite, probably of natural origin, followed by a paler green containing a higher proportion of lead‐tin yellow, mixed with verdigris and lead white, and finally a thin glaze of verdigris that is slightly discoloured.

The flesh of the Virgin (and of the other standing figures) consists of lead white mixed with some red lake and azurite, with a green pigment and yellowish earth added in the shadows. The Virgin’s eyes are painted in black, with no distinct irises (fig. 8). Her dress is red lake and white, with a little azurite, and her blue cloak consists of azurite of strong colour and large particle size. The cloak of the small figure of the Virgin Annunciate, standing high up in the architecture opposite the angel Gabriel, is painted with two layers of azurite, the upper layer of high quality and large particle size. The garment of the small angel on the lower left in white has purple folds, made with azurite, red lake and white. The angel [page 806] diagonally opposite, at the Virgin’s proper left shoulder, has garments of a similar colour, while the garments of the other two angels have a bluer hue, so do not include red lake but are only lead white and azurite.

The bishop‐saint’s purple mitre and cope were first modelled with a purple paint containing mainly azurite and white, with a little red lake; over this is a glaze of red lake with a small amount of high quality azurite of large particle size. The cope’s green lining is painted with mixtures of verdigris, lead‐tin yellow and lead white. The deep translucent green of the jewelled bands on the mitre and the jewelled cross on the front of his vestments contains mainly verdigris. The paint of the pearls decorating these bands has been applied with great speed, so that their shapes are variable and the white paint of the highlights has sometimes flowed slightly down the panel (fig. 9). The shadow cast on the architecture to the left of the bishop‐saint has been blotted to create a very thin layer, leaving a clear fingerprint.

Subject

The Virgin, in a red dress patterned with pearls (fig. 10) and a blue cloak, is seated with the Christ Child in her lap, her left hand clasping his right foot (fig. 11). The angel on the right below the Virgin glances up to offer him a red rose from his basket (figs 12, 13). The Christ Child seems to ignore him and instead, smiling, tries to grasp the pear (or fig), a symbol of the fruit eaten at the Fall and hence of the burden of original sin which Christ’s future sacrifice will redeem (fig. 14); this is offered by the left‐hand angel, also holding a basket, who stretches up as the Christ Child stretches down.⁷ The action is observed by the angel on the pedestal to the left of the Virgin, while the angel on the right leans forward towards it; the Virgin also glances down and to one side. On the left, another small drama takes places: Saint Michael, in armour and a red jewel‐bordered cloak, weighs a soul in the left‐hand pan of his scale, raising his sword and glancing down at two small devils who have struggled onto the scales in order to outweigh the pious soul opposite by adding a miniature millstone, held by the blue devil, to the right‐hand pan (figs 15, 16). Under the saint’s feet is the devil himself. On the right of the painting is a bishop‐saint in a purple cope with a green lining over his white alb, holding a book in his right hand and a crozier in his left. Two angels stand on either side of the Virgin’s throne. Above them on the left is the angel Gabriel, the angel of the Annunciation, and on the right the Virgin Annunciate (fig. 17).⁸

The figures are set within an arcade made up of pierced triangular arches which seem to be carved from stone; the arches set up a strong sweep of right‐angled canopies above, which are echoed by the curves and angles of the marbled step and coloured tiles in the foreground. The sense of space created by the slender columns placed directly behind and to the side of the main figures is both mitigated and enhanced by the gilding of the sculpted floriate forms behind. They in turn both echo and contrast with the pierced trefoil decoration of the canopy above. The surprising and daring way in which the projecting canopies and central step are intersected by the picture edge has the effect of pushing the architectural setting back into the picture space so that it is framed as if seen through an open window.

The bishop‐saint on the right has no attributes other than his book and crozier, which makes his identification elusive. [page [807]] [page 808] As the picture is said to have come from the region of Bozen (Bolzano) (see Provenance), the figure might be one of the two bishop‐saints of Brixen (Bressanone), Albinus (or Albuin) and Ingenuin (or Genuinus), who have no attributes but are usually paired; Saint Albinus was bishop of Brixen and died in 1006.⁹ Saint Alcuin, the English Benedictine saint, is depicted as a bishop on panels from a Tyrolean altarpiece now in the National Gallery, Washington (although he was never consecrated as a bishop); there, however, he is holding a sword.¹⁰ Oberhammer suggested that the bishop‐saint is Saint Martin, identifying NG 5786 as a sketch for a documented (but subsequently destroyed) carved Altarpiece of Saint Michael by Pacher at Bozen begun in 1481, and depicting the Virgin and Child between saints Michael and Martin (see biography, p. 801).¹¹ Saint Martin is sometimes depicted as a bishop with no attributes other than book and crozier, and was venerated in the Tyrol, perhaps because according to his legend he travelled over the Alps to Italy, confronting the devil and converting a brigand.¹² He is the most likely identification for the bishop‐saint in NG 5786.

Function

The painting is small in size and its reverse is painted to imitate porphyry or marble (see Technical Notes), suggesting it was made as a portable image for private devotion.¹³ Although the subject of the enthroned Virgin and Child with Saints is common to both northern Europe and Italy, and is found in varying scales from large to small, the architectural presentation of this composition, with its carved stone canopies set against a carved gilded background, is particularly distinctive and unusual. The grandeur, sophistication and ambition evident in such a small work led Oberhammer to suggest that the painting was a trial for a larger, sculpted composition, as mentioned above.¹⁴ Its composition can certainly be related to much larger works by Pacher, notably the Four Fathers of the Church in Munich, part of a lost altarpiece for the Augustinian abbey at Neustift (Novacella) (figs 20–3 (a, b, c, d)).¹⁵ However, the high degree of finish of the painting, as well as its decoratively marbled reverse, indicates rather that it was a completed work and one owned by an individual.

Attribution and Date

The painting was exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1932–3 as the work of Pacher, and was described in 1939 by Campbell Dodgson as ‘a small picture of exquisite quality’.¹⁶ It entered the National Gallery collection in 1947 as by Pacher, and was published by Gould in 1951.¹⁷ Gould expounded the painting’s relationship to the carvings of the Saint Wolfgang and Gries altarpieces, documented commissions by Pacher, as well as to Pacher’s monumental paintings of the Four Fathers of the Church in Munich (figs 20–3 (a, b, c, d)), made for the abbey of Neustift, noting the similarities to the canopies in these works; he also compared NG 5786 to a number of pieces of sculpture, including three versions of a similar Saint Michael figure, describing NG 5786 as ‘a microcosm of … Michael Pacher’s works both in painting and sculpture’.¹⁸ The attribution of NG 5786 to Pacher himself was accepted by Ringler in 1951, who compared the National Gallery picture to a damaged wall painting of the Virgin, the so‐called Plappermutter, associated with Pacher, which survives on the facade of the parish church at Bozen (fig. 18).¹⁹ Frey in 1953 also argued that the National Gallery picture was an early work by Michael Pacher; Oberhammer in 1972 again attributed the painting to Michael Pacher, an [page [809]] [page 810] opinion shared by Bonsanti in 1990 and 2012.²⁰ However, other art historians have continued to debate the question of the painting’s relationship to Pacher and his circle. Rasmo in 1969 and Egg in 1985 attributed the National Gallery painting to Hans Pacher, Michael Pacher’s son, although there are no documented works by him.²¹ Stange in 1960, Rosenauer in 1967 and the authors of the 1998 catalogue of the exhibition at Neustift attributed NG 5786 to Pacher’s workshop, as did Madersbacher in 2015.²²

Although Pacher has reasonably been characterised as a painter and designer rather than a sculptor (see biography, p. 801), much of his work is on a large scale, and no other small devotional works of this type have been documented or associated with him (although there is no reason to think that he might not on occasion have produced such works). Moreover, the practical necessity for workshop assistance in painting the larger works, as well as the requirement to be effective and legible from the distances of a church interior, have inevitably affected their style, calling for a homogeneity and also a simplification in execution which the painter of the small panel had no need to adopt.²³ These factors make for difficult comparison with a small work of very high quality such as NG 5786, which is also distant in style and quality [page 811]from paintings believed to be produced by those associated with Pacher.²⁴

However, some productive and convincing comparisons can be made between the National Gallery painting and Pacher’s large‐scale work as well as with some smaller paintings. The carving of the foliate pattern of the background of NG 5786 shares a similar rhythm and flow to the inner faces of the shutters of the Saint Wolfgang Altarpiece and the subtle variation in the different levels of relief are reflected in similarly ornamented areas in these shutters. Even allowing for disparities in scale, the panels of the Four Fathers of the Church (figs 20–3 (a, b, c, d)) can be closely related to the National Gallery picture, both in the richly decorative architectural settings with similar canopies projecting over the almost life‐size figures, and in certain details, such as the grisaille figure of Saint Catherine in the Saint Ambrose panel, whose slender neck and inclined head resemble those of the Virgin in the smaller panel. The Munich altarpiece, above all the scene of Saint Augustine disputing with Heretics on the outer left shutter, shows the same interest in gesture and interaction between figures, especially through eye contact, that has been observed in the National Gallery picture.²⁵ Nevertheless, the huge difference in scale (even the Virgin embroidered on Saint Augustine’s cope is considerably larger than her counterpart in the small panel) and the greater breadth of handling involved in the large work makes it difficult to draw conclusions concerning authorship from such a comparison.

Close parallels to NG 5786 are to be found in smaller works, including the early Saint Lawrence Altarpiece shutters in Vienna and Munich from about 1462–3, and two Saint Thomas Becket panels at Graz, attributed to Pacher and/or his workshop (figs 24, 25), which may have formed parts of the predella of the altarpiece which included the Four Fathers of the Church.²⁶ As narrative scenes they share with the larger works the same spatial organisation, dramatically and ingeniously lit, in particular the scene of the funeral of Saint Thomas, where two different light sources are implied. The interplay of a relatively limited palette of colours, mainly different shades of red, pink and purple set against a brilliant green, is also typical. The figure types, their animation and the way that they engage with one another, also have their equivalents in the larger works. But equally, the spatial organisation, animation and engagement between the figures also find parallels in the small National Gallery painting.

The Saint Thomas Becket panels are exquisitely refined in their detail and in the handling of the paint, and are closely comparable to the National Gallery painting.²⁷ The individualised heads are shown with tiny eyelashes and facial warts, also to be seen on some of the more grotesque heads in the Saint Lawrence Altarpiece shutters; the artist has even observed how the stitching of the surplice has been pulled by the raised arm of the cleric at the centre of the funeral scene. Other details connect the Graz panels with The Virgin and Child Enthroned with Angels and Saints: for example, the tiny hands and feet of the flying angels are depicted in exactly the same way as those of the angels and the Annunciation group in the London picture. There are no borders studded with tiny pearls – small pieces of applied relief brocade have been fixed to the surface instead – but the chainmail of the knight who murders the saint is highlighted with white flicks and dots in an identical manner to that employed on the figure of Saint Michael in NG 5786 (fig. 28). The relief decoration on the reverses of the small Saint Thomas Becket panels with the emblems of the Evangelists Mark and Luke show similar subtle variations in levels (figs 26, 27).²⁸

As the Graz and Saint Lawrence panels are sometimes taken to be the work of Pacher and assistants, it might be arguable that NG 5786 is merely the work of a talented assistant also involved with those projects, or else a gifted follower. However, the National Gallery picture is remarkable for the extraordinarily high quality of its painting, for its use of space and for the animation of the figures within it.²⁹ The painting has none of the characteristics of a workshop piece or signs of the attempts of a lesser painter to imitate the work of a greater and more original master: it is the work of a sophisticated artist of remarkable skill. These qualities are evident in a great variety of ways despite the small compass of the picture. The figures are not only set at varying angles to each other and to the spaces they inhabit, for instance the angels or the Saint Michael or the Virgin and Child, but they also glance at each other in a way that sets up a series of relationships and incomplete actions. The impression given by the whole is dense and complex, striving for ambitious effects though on a small scale. The quality of the painting of the figures and details is extremely high, from the gilded, red‐rimmed, highlighted eyes of the devil to the individualised expressions of each of the figures, even the smallest. All these aspects argue strongly that the painting is an exceptional survival of a small devotional work by Pacher himself.

The close compositional links with the Munich Four Fathers, as well as the congruence in the highly developed manner of presenting linked, responding pairs of figures, suggests that NG 5786 might date from the same period, probably the 1470s. Although it cannot be considered a sketch for the lost larger altarpiece of Saint Michael and Saint Martin of 1481–4 as argued by Oberhammer, it is possible that a design for such a larger work might be echoed in its composition, as the links to sculpted works also indicate, and as the similarity to the Munich paintings might suggest.³⁰ Bonsanti has argued that NG 5786 is a late work, from about 1490, and must post‐date the Munich Four Fathers, to which the architecture is close.³¹ Madersbacher dated it to 1480–90.³² However, as the Munich work probably spanned a considerable period, completed around 1480, it seems unnecessary to have to decide that these characteristics in NG 5786 are echoes rather than experiments which foreshadow later works. As NG 5786 does not seem in any way experimental, but rather supremely accomplished, a date from the latter part of the 1470s or even the early 1480s has much to recommend it.

Select Bibliography

Levey 1959, pp. 98–9; Gould 1951, pp. 389–90; Ringler 1951, pp. 55–8; Frey 1953, pp. 56–60; Stange 1960, pp. 178–9; Rasmo 1969, pp. 67, 235; Oberhammer 1972, pp. 154–76; Bonsanti 1990, pp. 20–2; Dunkerton 1991, p. 330; Madersbacher in Andergassen, Rosenauer and Plieger 1998, pp. 200–2, no. 29; Dunkerton 2000, pp. 4–19; Bonsanti 2012, p. 14; Madersbacher 2015, pp. 277–9.

Notes