Madonna in the Church

Jan van Eyck,Madonna in the Church (c. 143840). Oil on oakpanel, 31 14 cm (12.25 5.5 in). Gemldegalerie, Berlin

Madonna in the Church (or The Virgin in the Church)is a small oil panel by the early Netherlandish painter Janvan Eyck. Probably executed between c. 143840, it de-picts the Virgin Mary holding the Child Jesus in a Gothiccathedral. Mary is presented as Queen of Heaven wear-ing a jewel-studded crown, cradling a playful child Christwho gazes at her and grips the hem of her red dress ina manner that recalls the 13th-century Byzantine tradi-tion of the Eleusa icon (Virgin of Tenderness). Tracery inthe arch at the rear of the nave contains wooden carvings

depicting episodes from Marys life, while a faux sculp-ture in a niche shows her holding the child in a similarpose. Erwin Panofsky sees the painting composed as ifthe main gures in the panel are intended to be the sculp-tures come to life.[1] In a doorway to the right, two angelssing psalms from a hymn book. Like other Byzantine de-pictions of the Madonna, van Eyck depicts a monumentalMary, unrealistically large compared to her surroundings.The panel contains closely observed beams of light ood-ing through the cathedrals windows. It illuminates theinterior before culminating in two pools on the oor. Thelight has symbolic signicance, alluding simultaneouslyto Marys virginal purity and Gods ethereal presence.[2]

Most art historians see the panel as the left wing of adismantled diptych; presumably its opposite wing was avotive portrait. Near-contemporary copies by the Masterof 1499 and Jan Gossaert pair it with two very dierentright-hand images: one is of a donor kneeling in an inte-rior setting; the other is set outdoors, with the donor beingpresented by St Anthony. Both painters made signicantalterations to van Eycks composition, which may havebrought the image more up to date with contemporarystyles, but the copies have been described as spirituallyif not aesthetically disastrous to the original concept.[3]

Madonna in the Church was rst documented in 1851.Since then its dating and attribution have been widely de-bated amongst scholars. At rst thought an early work byJan van Eyck, and for a period attributed to his brotherHubert van Eyck, it is now denitively attributed to Janand believed to be a later work, demonstrating techniquespresent in work from the mid-1430s and later. The panelwas acquired for the Berlin Gemldegalerie in 1874. Itwas stolen in 1877 and soon returned, but without its orig-inal inscribed frame, whichwas never recovered.[4] TodayMadonna in the Church is widely considered one of vanEycks nest; Millard Meiss wrote that its splendor andsubtlety of [its depiction] of light is unsurpassed in West-ern art.[5]

1 Attribution and datingThe attribution of the panel reects the progression andtrends of 19th and 20th-century scholarship on EarlyNetherlandish art. It is now thought to have been com-pleted c. 143840, but there are still arguments for datesas early as 142429. As with the pages ascribed to HandG in the Turin-Milan Hours manuscript, the panel wasattributed to Jans brother Hubert van Eyck in the 1875

1

2 2 THE PANEL

Mass of the Dead. From the Turin-Milan Hours, attributed to theanonymous Hand G, thought to be van Eyck. This work shows avery similar gothic interior to the Berlin panel.

Gemldegalerie catalogue, and by a 1911 claim by art his-torian Georges Hulin de Loo.[6] This is no longer consid-ered credible and Hubert, today, is credited with very fewworks.[7][8] By 1912 the painting had been denitively at-tributed to Jan in the museum catalogue.[6]

Attempts to date it have undergone similar shifts of opin-ion. In the 19th century the panel was believed to be anearly work by Jan completed as early as c. 1410, althoughthis view changed as scholarship progressed. In the early20th century, Ludwig von Baldass placed it around 142429, then for a long period it was seen as originating fromthe early 1430s.[6] Erwin Panofsky provided the rst de-tailed treatise on the work and placed it around 143234.However, following research fromMeyer Schapiro, he re-vised his opinion to the late 1430s in the 1953 edition ofhis Early Netherlandish Painting.[8] A 1970s comparativestudy of van Eycks 1437 Saint Barbara concluded thatMadonna in the Church was completed after c. 1437.[6]In the 1990s, Otto Pcht judged the work as probably alate van Eyck, given the similar treatment of an interiorin the 1434 Arnolni Portrait.[9] In the early 21st century,Jerey Chipps Smith and John Oliver Hand placed it be-tween 1426 and 1428, claiming it as perhaps the earliestextant signed work conrmed as by Jan.[10]

2 The panel

2.1 Description

At 31 cm 14 cm, the paintings dimensions are smallenough to be almost considered miniature, consistentwith most 15th-century devotional diptychs. A reducedsize increased portability and aordability, and encour-aged the viewer to approach the piece to more closelysee its intricate details.[11] The work shows Mary wear-ing a dark blue robe the colour traditionally used toemphasise her humanity over a red dress of dierenttextured fabrics. Her hem is embroidered in gold withgilded lettering that reads SOL and LU,[12] or perhapsSIOR SOLE HEC ES,[13] in all probability, fragments of theLatin words for sun (sole) and light (lux).[12] On herhead is an elaborately tiered and jeweled crown and inher arms she carries the infant Jesus, his feet resting onher left hand. Swaddled in a white cloth from hips trail-ing down beyond his feet, his hand rests on her necklineclutching the jeweled hem of his mothers dress.[14]

The Madonna and infant Christ (detail). A statue of theMadonna and Child can be seen just behind; to the right twoangels sing psalms.

Further depictions of Mary are found in the church back-ground. They include a statue of the Virgin and Childpositioned between two lit candles in the choir screen be-hind the main gures, and to the right two angels stand inthe choir singing her praises (perhaps singing the hymninscribed on the frame). Above her is an annunciationrelief, and in the recessed bay a relief depicting her coro-nation; the crucixion is shown on the rood. Thus, thestages of Marys life as mother of Jesus are depicted inthe painting.[15] A two-column prayer tablet similar tothe one depicted in Rogier van der Weyden's large SevenSacraments Altarpiece (144550) hangs on a pier to theleft. It contains words alluding to and echoing the lineson the original frame.[1] The windows of the clerestoryoverlook ying buttresses, and cobwebs are visible be-tween the arches of the vault.[16] Several dierent build-ing phases can be seen in the arched gallery, while thechoral balcony and transept are depicted in a more con-temporary style than the nave.[16]

2.3 Architecture 3

Closely detailed beams of light spill through the high win-dows and illuminate the interior, lling the portal andowing across the tiled oors before it hits the clerestorywindows. The brilliance of the daylight is juxtaposedwith the gentle glow of the candles in the choir screenaltar, while the lower portion of the pictorial space is rel-atively poorly lit.[15] Shadows cast by the cathedral canbe seen across the choir steps and near aisle.[12] Their an-gle is rendered in an unusually realistic manner for early1400s, and the detail is such that their description is likelybased on observation of the actual behaviour of light, afurther innovation in 15th-century art. Yet while the lightis portrayed as it might appear in nature, its source is not.Panofsky notes that the sunlight enters from the northwindows, but contemporary churches normally had east-facing choirs, so the light should enter from the south. Hesuggests the light is not intended to be natural, but ratherto represent the divine, and hence subject to the laws ofsymbolism and not those of nature.[17]

2.2 Frame and inscriptions

According to Elisabeth Dhanens, the shape and roundedtop of the original frame is reminiscent of those found onthe top register of panels of the Ghent altarpiece, whichare accepted as designed by Jans brother Hubert.[6] Shebelieves the current frame is too narrow and small, andcontains clumsy marbling.[18] From a detailed 1851 in-ventory, we know the text of the hymn inscribed on orig-inal frame. The text is written in a poetic form and be-gun on the lower border and then extended upwards onthe vertical borders, ending on the top border.[15][19] Thelower border of the frame read FLOS FLORIOCOLORUMAPPELLARIS; the sides and top MATTER HEC EST FILLIAPATER EST NATUS QUIS AUDIVIT TALIA DEUS HOMO NA-TUS ETCET (The mother is the daughter. This father isborn. Who has heard of such a thing? God born a man).The fth stanza of the hymn (not included in van Eyckstranscription) reads, As the sunbeam through the glass.Passeth but not staineth. Thus, the Virgin, as she was.Virgin still remaineth.[15] The lettering on the hem ofher robe echoes the inscription on the frame, words sim-ilar to those found on Marys dress in van Eycks 1436Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele,[16] a passagefrom the Book ofWisdom (7:29) reading EST ENIMHAECSPECIOSIOR SOLE ET SUPER OMNEM STELLARUM DISPO-SITIONEM. LUCI CONPARATA INVENITUR PRIOR (For sheis more beautiful than the sun, and excels every constel-lation of the stars. Compared with the light she is foundto be superior).[12]

Some historians have suggested that the inscriptions wereintended to breathe life into the other statues and de-pictions of Mary.[15] Others, including Craig Harbison,believe they were purely functional; given that contem-porary diptychs were commissioned for private devotionand reection, the inscriptions were meant to be read asan incantation or were personalised indulgence prayers.

Harbison notes that van Eycks privately commissionedworks are unusually heavily inscribed with prayer, andthat the words may have served a similar function toprayer tablets, or more exactly Prayer Wings, of thetype seen in the reconstructed London Virgin and Childtriptych.[20]

2.3 Architecture

The furthermost stained-glass window at the top left of the panel

Van Eycks earlier work often shows churches and cathe-drals in older Romanesque style, sometimes to representthe Temple in Jerusalem as an appropriate historical set-ting, with decoration drawn exclusively from the Old Tes-

4 2 THE PANEL

tament.[21] That is clearly not the case here the ChristChild occupies the same space as a large rood cross de-picting him being crucied. The church in this panelis contemporary Gothic a choice perhaps intended toassociate Mary with the Ecclesia Triumphans whileher pose and oversized scale are indebted to the formsand conventions of Byzantine art and the InternationalGothic.[22] Van Eyck details the architecture with a pre-cision not seen before in northern European painting.[15]

The crucixion in the upper right portion of the panel

The dierent elements of the cathedral are so specicallydetailed and the elements of Gothic and contemporaryarchitecture so well delineated, that art and architecturehistorians have concluded that van Eyck must have hadenough architectural knowledge to make nuanced dis-tinctions. More so, given the nesse of the descriptions,many scholars have tried to link the painting with a par-ticular building.[23] Yet, and as with all buildings in vanEycks work, the structure is imagined and probably anidealised formation of what he viewed as a perfect archi-tectural space. This is evident from a number of featuresthat would be unlikely in a contemporary church, such asthe placing of a round arched triforium above a pointedcolonnade.[24]

Several art historians have reasoned why van Eyck didnot model the interior on any actual building. Mostagree that he sought to create an ideal and perfect spacefor Marys apparition,[25] and aimed for visual impactrather than physical possibility. Buildings suggested aspossible (at least partial) sources include Saint Nicholas

Church, Ghent, the Basilica of St Denis, Dijon Cathedral,Lige Cathedral and Cologne Cathedral,[26] as well as thebasilica of Our Lady in Tongeren, which contains a verysimilar triforium gallery and clerestory.[25] Tongeren isone of a minority of churches in the region aligned on anorth-east to south-west axis, so that the lighting condi-tions in the painting can be seen on summer mornings.[27]In addition, the church contains a standing statue of theVirgin and Child (theVirgin with a tall crown), once cred-ited with miraculous powers, though the current statuepost-dates van Eyck.[28]

Pcht described the work in terms of an interior illu-sion, noting the manner in which the viewers eye fallsacross the nave, the crossing, but only then, [is he] look-ing through and over the rood screen, the choir. Fromthis Pcht views the perspective as deliberately lackingcohesion, as the relationship between the parts of thebuilding is not shown in full ... The transition from fore-ground to background is ingeniously masked by the gureof the Madonna herself, who obscures the crossing pier;the middle ground is practically eliminated and our eyecrosses over it without our becoming aware of it. Theillusion is enhanced by the use of colour to suggest light:the interior is dim and in shadow while the unseen exte-rior seems bathed in bright light.[29]

2.4 Windows and stained glass

Unusual for a 13th-century Gothic cathedral, most of thewindows are of clear glass.[15] Looking at the windowsrunning along the nave, John L. Ward observed that thewindow directly above the suspended crucix is the onlyone whose uppermost portion is visible. That windowdirectly faces the viewer, revealing intricately designedstained glass panels that show intertwined red and blueowers. Because the window is so far back in the pictorialspace, where perspective is becoming faint, the proximityof the owers to the crucix lends them the appearanceof coming forward in space, as if [they] had suddenlygrown from the top of the crucix in front of it.[30]

Ward does not believe this a trick of the eye resulting fromloss of perspective towards the high reaches of the panel.Instead he sees it as a subtle reference to the iconographyandmythology of the Book ofGenesis' Tree of life, whichhe describes here as reborn in Christs death. He doesacknowledge the subtlety of the illusion, and the fact thatneither of the two well known near copies include the mo-tif. The idea of owers shown as if sprouting from the topof the cross may have been borrowed from Masaccio's c.1426 Crucixion, where owers are placed on the upperportion of the vertical beam of the cross. Ward concludesthan van Eyck took the idea even further by showing theowers emanating from another source, and sought to de-pict the actual moment where the tree of life is rebornand the cross comes to life and sprouts owers as onewatches.[30]

3.2 Eleusa icon 5

3 Interpretation and iconography

3.1 LightIn the early 15th century, Mary held a central position inChristian iconography and was often portrayed as the onein whom the Word was made esh, a direct result of thework of the divine light.[31] During the medieval period,light acted as a visual symbol for both the immaculateconception and Christs birth; it was believed that he wasmade manifest by Gods light passing through Marysbody, just as light shines through a window pane.[32]

The divine represented by light is a motif in keeping withthe sentiment of both the Latin text on the hem of Marysdress (which compares her beauty and radiance to thatof divine light)[17] and on the frame. A separate sourceof light, which also behaves as if from a divine ratherthan natural source, illuminates her face. The two poolsof light behind her have been described as lending thepainting a mystical atmosphere, indicating the presenceof God.[12] In the niche behind her, the statues are lit bytwo candles - symbols of the incarnation, whereas she isbathed in natural light.[15] The articial light adds to theoverall illusion of the interior of the church, which Pchtviews as achieved mainly through colour.[33]

Light became a popular means for 15th-century North-ern painters to represent the mystery of the Incarnation,utilising the idea of light passing through glass withoutshattering it to convey the paradox of conception and"virgo intacta". This is reected in a passage attributedto Bernard of Clairvaux from his Sermones de Diversis";Just as the brilliance of the sun lls and penetrates a glasswindow without damaging it, and pierces its solid formwith imperceptible subtlety, neither hurting it when en-tering nor destroying it when emerging: thus the word ofGod, the splendor of the Father, entered the virgin cham-ber and then came forth from the closed womb.[34]

Before the early Netherlandish period, divine light wasnot well described: if a painter wanted to depict heav-enly radiance, he typically painted an object in reectivegold. There was a focus on describing the object itselfrather than the eect of the light as it fell across it. VanEyck was one of the rst to portray lights saturation, il-luminating eects and gradations as it poured across thepictorial space. He detailed how an objects colour couldvary depending on the amount and type of light illumi-nating it. This play of light is evident across the panel,and especially seen on Marys gilded dress and jewelledcrown, across her hair and on her mantle.[33]

3.2 Eleusa iconThe panel is, with the AntwerpMadonna at the Fountain,broadly accepted as one of van Eycks two late Madonnaand Child paintings before his death in about 1441. Bothshow a standing Virgin dressed in blue. In both works,

Annunciation, Jan van Eyck, c 1434. National Gallery of Art,Washington DC. This is perhaps the best known of van EycksMadonna paintings where the gures seem overlarge comparedwith the architecture. However, in this work there are no archi-tectural ttings to give a clear scale to the building.

Marys positioning and colourisation contrasts with hisearlier surviving treatments of the subject, in which shewas typically seated and dressed in red. Models for stand-ing Virgins existed in the icons of Byzantine art, and bothpaintings also represent modied versions of the eleusa

6 3 INTERPRETATION AND ICONOGRAPHY

The CambraiMadonna, (anonymous), c. 1340. Italo-Byzantine.Cambrai Cathedral

type, sometimes called the Virgin of Tenderness in En-glish, where the Virgin and Child touch cheeks, and thechild caresses Marys face.[35]

During the 14th and 15th centuries, a large number ofthese works were imported into northern Europe, andwere widely copied by the rst generation of Nether-landish artists, among others.[36] The iconography ofboth the late Byzantine typied by the unknownartist responsible for the Cambrai Madonna and 14th-century successors such as Giotto favoured presentingthe Madonna on a monumental scale. Undoubtedly vanEyck absorbed these inuences, though when and throughwhich works is disputed. It is believed that he had rst-hand exposure to them during his visit to Italy, which oc-curred either in 1426 or 1428, before the Cambrai iconwas brought to the North.[37] Van Eycks two Madonnapanels carried forward the habit of reproduction and werethemselves frequently copied by commercial workshopsthroughout the 15th century.[38][39]

It is possible that the Byzantine avour to these imageswas also connected with contemporary attempts throughdiplomacy to achieve reconciliation with the Greek Or-thodox Church, in which van Eycks patron Philip theGood took a keen interest. Van Eycks Portrait of Car-dinal Niccol Albergati (c. 1431) depicts one of the papaldiplomats most involved with these eorts.[40]

3.3 Mary as the ChurchVan Eyck gives Mary three roles: Mother of Christ, thepersonication of the "Ecclesia Triumphans" and Queenof Heaven, the latter apparent from her jewel-studdedcrown.[11] The paintings near miniature size contrastswith Marys unrealistically large stature compared withher setting. She physically dominates the cathedral; herhead is almost level with the approximately sixty feet highgallery.[11] This distortion of scale is found in a numberof other van Eycks Madonna paintings, where the archesof the mostly gothic interior do not allow headroom forthe virgin. Pcht describes the interior as a throneroom, which envelopes her as if a carrying case.[41]Her monumental stature reects a tradition reaching backto an Italo-Byzantine type perhaps best known throughGiotto's Ognissanti Madonna (c. 1310) and emphasisesher identication with the cathedral itself. Till-HolgerBorchert says that van Eyck did not paint her as theMadonna in a church, but instead as metaphor, present-ing Mary as the Church.[16] This idea that her size rep-resents her embodiment as the church was rst suggestedby Erwin Panofsky in 1941. Art historians in the 19thcentury, who thought the work was executed early in vanEycks career, attributed her scale as the mistake of a rel-atively immature painter.[42]

The composition is today seen as deliberate, and oppositeto both his Madonna of Chancellor Rolin and ArnolniPortrait. These works show interiors seemingly too smallto contain the gures, a device van Eyck used to cre-ate and emphasise an intimate space shared by donorand saint.[43] The Virgins height recalls his Annunciationof 143436, although in that composition there are noarchitectural ttings to give a clear scale to the build-ing. Perhaps reecting the view of a relatively immaturepainter, a copy of the Annunciation by Joos van Cleveshows Mary at a more realistic proportion scale to hersurroundings.[11]

Mary is presented as a Marian apparition; in this caseshe probably appears before a donor, who would havebeen kneeling in prayer in the now lost opposite panel.[1]The idea of a saint appearing before laity was commonin Northern art of the period,[44] and is also representedin van Eycks Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele(143436). There, the Canon is portrayed as if havingjust momentarily paused to reect on a passage from hishand-held bible as the Virgin and Child with two saintsappear before him, as if embodiments of his prayer.[45]

3.4 PilgrimageAs a prayer tablet placed on a pier was a distinctive traitof pilgrimage churches, Harbison sees the panel as partlyconcerned with the phenomenon of pilgrimage. Thistype of tablet contained specic prayers whose recitationin front of a particular image or in the church was be-lieved to attract an indulgence, or remission of time in

7Purgatory. The statue of the Virgin and Child in the nichebehind Marys left shoulder might represent such an im-age, whereas the inscription of a Nativity hymn aroundthe lost frame, ending in ETCET, i.e. etcetera, wouldhave told the viewer to recite the whole hymn, perhapsfor an indulgence. The purpose of the picture, therefore,may have been to represent and bring the act of pilgrim-age to a domestic setting. This would have been attractiveto Philip the Good who, though he made many pilgrim-ages in person, is recorded as paying van Eyck to performone on his behalf in 1426, apparently an acceptable prac-tice in Late Medieval celestial accounting.[46]

The Virgin and Child at the forefront might represent thebackground statues coming to life; at the time such anapparition was considered the highest form of pilgrimageexperience. Their poses are similar and her tall crown istypical of those seen on statues rather than either royaltyor painted gures of the Virgin. Harbison further sug-gests that the two pools of light on the oor echo the twocandles on either side of one of the statues, and notes thatthe copies described below retain the prayer tablet, onebringing it nearer to the foreground.[46]

4 Lost diptych and copies

Master of 1499, Madonna and Child with a Portrait of AbbotChristiaan de Hondt. Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,Antwerp.

Most art historians believe that there are a number of in-dicators that the panel was the left-hand wing of a dis-mantled diptych. The frame contains clasps, implying itwas once hinged to a second panel.[47] The work seemscomposed to be symmetrically balanced towards an ac-companying right-hand wing: Mary is positioned slightlyto the right of centre, while her downward, almost coyglance is directed at a space beyond the edge of the panel,suggesting that she is looking at, or in the direction of, akneeling donor in a right-hand wing. The visible archi-tectural features with the exception of the niches, the

crucixion and the windows directly behind it, which areat a right angle to the nave and centre front, facing theviewer are at the left of the panel, facing right.[48]

Harbison believes the panel is almost certainly only theleft-hand half of a devotional diptych.[49] Dhanens ob-serves how Marys eyeline extends beyond the horizon ofher panel, a common feature of Netherlandish diptychsand triptychs, where the saints gaze is directed towardsan accompanying image of a donor.[18] Other indicatorsinclude the unusually oblique architectural aspect of thechurch, which suggests that its depiction was intended toextend across to a sister wing in a manner similar to theMaster of Flemalle's Annunciation,[18] and especially invan der Weydens c. 1452 Braque Triptych, where conti-nuity between the panels is especially emphasised.[50]

Jan Gossaert ?, Virgin in the Church, c. 151015,Galleria Doria Pamphilj, Rome. This panel has some-times been attributed to Gerard David.[51]

St Anthony with a Donor, c. 1513. Galleria DoriaPamphilj, Rome

8 6 REFERENCES

Two near-contemporary copies, usually attributed to theGhent Master of 1499 and Jan Gossaert,[52] were com-pleted while the original was in the collection ofMargaretof Austria, great-granddaughter of Philip the Good. Bothpresent variants of the Madonna panel as the left wingof a devotional diptych, with a donor portrait as the rightwing.[53] However, the two donor panels have very dier-ent settings. The 1499 version shows the Cistercian abbotChristiaan de Hondt praying in his luxurious quarters,[48]while Gossaert presents the donor Antonio Siciliano, ac-companied by Saint Anthony, in a panoramic landscapesetting. It is not known if either work is based on an orig-inal left-hand panel painted by van Eyck.[54]

The 1499 Madonna panel is a free adaption, in that theartist has changed and repositioned a number of ele-ments. However art historians usually agree that theyare to the detriment of the balance and impact of thecomposition.[3] The panel attributed to Gossaert showseven more signicant, though perhaps more success-ful, alterations, including shifting the centre of balanceby adding a section to the right-hand side, dressing theVirgin entirely in dark blue and changing her facialfeatures.[55] Both copies omit the two pools of bright lighton the oor across from her, thus removing the mysti-cal element of van Eycks original,[56] perhaps becauseits signicance was not grasped by the later artists.[57]That Gossaert followed other aspects of the original soclosely, however, is evidence of the high regard he heldfor van Eycks technical and aesthetic ability, and his ver-sion has been seen by some as a homage.[58] The Masterof 1499s admiration for van Eyck can be seen in his left-hand panel, which contains many features reminiscent ofvan Eycks Arnolni Portrait, including the rendering ofthe ceiling beams and the colour and texture of the redfabrics.[48]

Around 152030, the Ghent illuminator and miniaturistSimon Bening produced a half-length Virgin and Childthat closely resembles van Eycks panel, to the extent thatit can be considered a loose copy. However, it can bemore closely related to the original Cambrai Madonna es-pecially in its retention of the halo, which was consideredold fashioned by the 15th century. Benings Madonna isdistinct to the two earlier copies of van Eyck; it was in-tended as a stand-alone panel, not part of a diptych, andthough compositionally similar, radically departs fromthe original, especially in its colourisation. It is thoughtthat Benings work was informed by Gossaerts panelrather than directly by van Eycks.[51][59]

5 ProvenanceThe provenance of the work contains many gaps, andeven the better-documented periods are often compli-cated or murky, according to Dhanens. There is almostno record from the early 16th century through 1851, andthe theft in 1877 leaves doubt for some as to what exactly

was returned. Historian Lon de Laborde documented analtarpiece in a village near Nantes in 1851 a Madonnain a church nave holding the Christ Child in her rightarm which he described as painted on wood, very wellpreserved, still in its original frame.[19] The descriptioncontains a detailing of the frames inscription.[60] A docu-ment from 1855 records a Virgin in the Church thought tobe by Hubert and Jan van Eyck, which may be the samepainting. It belonged to a Monsieur Nau, who had boughtit for 50 francs from the housekeeper of Francois Cacault,a French diplomat who had acquired a number of paint-ings from Italy.[19]

A panel very similar in description was purchased by theAachen art collector Barthold Suermondt sometime dur-ing the 1860s and catalogued in 1869 with a detailing ofthe frames inscription. This work was thought to havecome from Nantes,[60] suggesting it was the same as thepanel mentioned in 1851. The Suermondt collection wasacquired by the Berlin museum in May 1874, as partof an acquisition of 219 paintings.[61] The painting wasstolen in March 1877, generating worldwide news cov-erage; it was recovered ten days later, but without theoriginal frame.[62] The 1875 Berlin museum catalogue at-tributes a van Eyck imitator; the 1883 catalogue describesthe original as lost and the Berlin painting a copy. Soonafter, however, its authenticity was veried, and the 1904Berlin catalogue attributed Jan.[6]

Philip the Good may have been the original patron, giventhat a painting matching its description was recorded ina 1567 inventory of his great-granddaughter Margaret ofAustria, who inherited the majority of Philips collection.The description in her record reads, "Un autre tableaude Nostre-Dame, du duc Philippe, qui est venu de Mail-lardet, couvert de satin brouch gris, et ayant fermaulxd'argent dor et bord de velours vert. Fait de la main Jo-hannes."[63] From the naming conventions known fromthe collections inventory, Johannes probably refers tovan Eyck, duc Philippe to Philip.[47]

6 References

6.1 Notes[1] Harbison (1995), 99

[2] Smith (2004), 64

[3] Koch (1967), 48. See also Panofsky (1953), 487

[4] Harbison (1995), 177

[5] Meiss (1945), 179

[6] Dhanens (1980), 323

[7] Till-Holger Borchert mentions that although Hurbert en-joyed a brief re-ourish in the early 20th century, dur-ing the latter half of the 19th century some scholarswere claiming he was the invention of the 16th century,

6.1 Notes 9

by ercely patriotic Ghent humanists, and a ctitiouscharacter who had never actually lived, let alone been animportant painter. See Borchert (2008), 12

[8] Panofsky & Wuttke (2006), 552

[9] Pcht (1999), 205

[10] Smith (2004), 61

[11] Harbison (1995), 169187

[12] Smith (2004), 63

[13] Meiss (1945), 180

[14] Weale (1908), 167

[15] Meiss (1945), 179181

[16] Borchert (2008), 63

[17] Panofsky (1953), 147148

[18] Dhanens (1980), 325

[19] Dhanens (1980), 316

[20] Harbison (1995), 9596. Both wings are later additions.

[21] Snyder (1985), 99

[22] Walther, Ingo F.Masterpieces ofWestern Art (FromGothicto Neoclassicism: Part 1). Taschen GmbH, 2002. 124.ISBN 3-8228-1825-9

[23] Snyder (1985), 100; Harbison (1991), 169175

[24] Wood, Christopher. Forgery, Replica, Fiction: Temporal-ities of German Renaissance Art. University of ChicagoPress, 2008. 19596. ISBN 0-226-90597-7

[25] Harbison (1995), 101

[26] Dhanens (1980), 328

[27] Harbison (1991), 172176

[28] Harbison (1991), 178179

[29] Pcht (1999), 204

[30] Ward (1994), 17

[31] Walters Art Museum (1962), xv

[32] Meiss (1945), 177

[33] Pcht (1999), 14

[34] Meiss (1945), 176

[35] Harbison (1991), 158162

[36] See Evans (2004), 545593

[37] Harbison (1995), 156

[38] Jolly (1998), 396

[39] Harbison (1991), 159163

[40] Harbison (1991), 163167

[41] Pcht (1999), 203205

[42] Panofsky (1953), 145

[43] Harbison (1991), 100

[44] Harbison (1995), 96

[45] Rothstein (2005), 50

[46] Harbison (1991), 177178

[47] Kittell & Suydam (2004), 212

[48] Smith (2004), 65

[49] Harbison (1995), 98

[50] Acres, Alfred. Rogier van der Weydens Painted Texts.Artibus et Historiae, Volume 21, No. 41, 2000. 89

[51] Ainsworth et al (2010), 144

[52] The attribution of the latter diptych is sometimes ques-tioned in favour of van Eycks pupil Gerard David, basedon stylistic similarities and the fact that Gossaert is notusually associated with outdoor or landscape panels. Or,if Gossaerts hand is accepted, it may be that it was not in-tended as a diptych wing and the right wing was designedby a member of Gerards workshop. The Madonna panelcontains far fewer indicators of being a pendant, that is anaccompanying but unattached panel, than van Eycks orig-inal, most especially the fact that her eyes are downcast.See Ainsworth et al (2010), 144

[53] Borchert (2008), 64

[54] Jones (2011), 3739

[55] Hand et al (2006), 100

[56] Jones (2011), 36

[57] Harbison (1991), 176

[58] Jones (2011), 37

[59] Ainsworth, Marion; Evans, Helen C. (ed.). Byzantium,Faith and Power (12611557). Metropolitan Museum ofArt, Yale University Press, 2004. 582588. ISBN 1-58839-114-0

[60] Meiss (1945), 175

[61] Dhanens (1980), 361

[62] The person returning the painting claimed to have boughtit for about 17 Groschen. See Dhanens (1980), 323

[63] Correspondance de l'empereurMaximilien Ier et deMar-guerite d'Autriche ... de 1507 1519 (in French). So-cit de l'histoire de France, Volumes 1617. Paris: J. Re-nouard et cie, 1839

10 7 EXTERNAL LINKS

6.2 Sources Ainsworth, Maryan Wynn; Alsteens, Stijn; Oren-stein, Nadine. Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures:Jan Gossarts Renaissance: The Complete Works.New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2010.ISBN 1-58839-398-4

Borchert, Till-Holger. Van Eyck. London: Taschen,2008. ISBN 3-8228-5687-8

Dhanens, Elisabeth. Hubert and Jan van Eyck. NewYork: Tabard Press. 1980, ISBN 0-914427-00-8

Evans, Helen C. (ed.), Byzantium, Faith andPower (12611557), 2004, Metropolitan Museumof Art/Yale University Press. ISBN 1-58839-114-0

Hand, John Oliver; Metzger, Catherine; Spron, Ron.Prayers and Portraits: Unfolding the NetherlandishDiptych. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,2006. ISBN 0-300-12155-5

Harbison, Craig. Realism and Symbolism in EarlyFlemish Painting. The Art Bulletin, Volume 66, No.4, December 1984. 588602

Harbison, Craig. The Art of the Northern Renais-sance. London: Laurence King Publishing, 1995.ISBN 1-78067-027-3

Harbison, Craig. Jan van Eyck, The Play of Realism.London: Reaktion Books, 1991. ISBN 0-948462-18-3

Jolly, Penny. Jan van Eycks Italian Pilgrimage: AMiraculous Florentine Annunciation and the GhentAltarpiece. Zeitschrift fr Kunstgeschichte. 61.Bd., H. 3, 1998. JSTOR 1482990

Jones, Susan Frances. Van Eyck to Gossaert. Lon-don: National Gallery, 2011. ISBN 1-85709-504-9

Kittell, Ellen; Suydam, Mary. The Texture of So-ciety: Medieval Women in the Southern Low Coun-tries: Women in Medieval Flanders. London: Pal-grave Macmillan, 2004. ISBN 0-312-29332-1

Koch, Robert A. Copies of Rogier van der Wey-dens Madonna in Red. Record of the Art Museum,Princeton University, Volume 26, No. 2, 1967. 4658

Lane, Barbara. The Altar and the Altarpiece,Sacramental Themes in Early Netherlandish Paint-ing. New York: Harper & Row, 1984. ISBN 0-06-430133-8

Lyman, Thomas. Architectural Portraiture andJan van Eycks Washington Annunciation. Gesta,Volume 20, No. 1, in Essays in Honor of HarryBober, 1981.

Meiss, Millard. Light as Form and Symbol in SomeFifteenth-Century Paintings. The Art Bulletin, Vol-ume 27, No. 3, 1945. JSTOR 3047010

Nash, Susie. Northern Renaissance art. Oxford:Oxford History of Art, 2008. ISBN 0-19-284269-2

Pcht, Otto. Van Eyck and the Founders of EarlyNetherlandish Painting. 1999. London: HarveyMiller Publishers. ISBN 1-872501-28-1

Panofsky, Erwin. Early Netherlandish painting: ItsOrigins and Character. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1953.

Panofsky, Erwin; Wuttke, Dieter (ed). Korrespon-denz 1950 1956 Band III. Wiesbaden: Harras-sowitz Verlag, 2006. ISBN 3-447-05373-9

Rothstein, Bret. Sight and Spirituality in EarlyNetherlandish Painting. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2005. ISBN 0-521-83278-0

Smith, Jerey Chipps. The Northern Renaissance.London: Phaidon Press, 2004. ISBN 0-7148-3867-5

Snyder, James. The Northern Renaissance: Painting,Sculpture, the Graphic Arts from 1350 to 1575. NewYork: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1985. ISBN 0-8109-1081-0

Tanner, Jeremy. Sociology of Art: A Reader. Lon-don: Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0-415-30884-4

Walters Art Museum. The International Style: TheArts in Europe around 1400. Exhibition: October23 December 2, 1962. Baltimore, MD.

Ward, John. Disguised Symbolism as EnactiveSymbolism in Van Eycks Paintings. Artibus et His-toriae, Volume 15, No. 29, 1994.

Weale, W.H. James. The Van Eycks and their art.London: John Lane, 1908

Wol, Martha; Hand, John Oliver. Early Nether-landish painting. National Gallery of Art Washing-ton. Oxford University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-521-34016-0

7 External links Van Eycks The Madonna in the Church atSmarthistory

11

8 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses8.1 Text

Madonna in the Church Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_in_the_Church?oldid=680272914 Contributors: MistToys,Graham87, Rjwilmsi, Mick gold, DVdm, Fram, The Yeti, Ashenai, Peloneous, Ian Rose, Smallbones, Ceoil, Mr Stephen, Cydebot, Aman-dajm, Casliber, Nick Number, Yomangani, Davidonline, Magioladitis, Johnbod, Graham Beards, WereSpielChequers, Randy Kryn, KafkaLiz, EoGuy, Hafspajen, Arjayay, Indopug, Addbot, Yobot, Victoriaearle, AnomieBOT, Materialscientist, Citation bot, Kalamkaar, Lil-Helpa, Xqbot, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy), John of Reading, Riggr Mortis, ZroBot, Brigade Piron, ClueBot NG, Exadrid, Danim,Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, George Ponderevo, Dan653, Solomon7968, Alarbus, WilliamDigiCol, Cocolacoste, VoxelBot, Vaniya ahsan,TFA Protector Bot, SilverFlag, Kanjuzi, Wikinils24, Cwestaway, Bluecupquake, Bobmittenscats, Stopbanningme1 and Anonymous: 18

8.2 Images File:14th-century_painters_-_Page_from_the_Trs_Belles_Heures_de_Notre_Dame_de_Jean_de_Berry_-_WGA16015.jpg

Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/14th-century_painters_-_Page_from_the_Tr%C3%A8s_Belles_Heures_de_Notre_Dame_de_Jean_de_Berry_-_WGA16015.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Web Gallery of Art: Image Info about artwork Original artist: Workshop of Jan van Eyck (circa 13901441)

File:Annunciation_-_Jan_van_Eyck_-_1434_-_NG_Wash_DC.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Annunciation_-_Jan_van_Eyck_-_1434_-_NG_Wash_DC.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: from enwiki Original artist: Jan vanEyck (circa 13901441)

File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Originalartist: ?

File:Diptych_Master_of_1499.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Diptych_Master_of_1499.jpg Li-cense: Public domain Contributors: http://worldart.sjsu.edu/VieO105538?sid=14501&x=4840992 Original artist: Master of 1499

File:Gossaert_St_Anthony_with_a_Donor.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Gossaert_St_Anthony_with_a_Donor.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Web Gallery of Art: Image (WGA has given permission for use of images on Wikipedia.) Original artist: JanGossaert

File:Jan_Gossaert_Virgin_in_the_Church.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Jan_Gossaert_Virgin_in_the_Church.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://books.google.ie/books?id=3aikaSu3tokC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Man,+Myth,+and+Sensual+Pleasures:+Jan+Gossart{}s+Renaissance:+The+Complete+Works&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GhIWUYvQMMW7hAe074HQBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false page 140 Original artist: Jan Gossaert

File:Jan_van_Eyck_-_The_Madonna_in_the_Church_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Jan_van_Eyck_-_The_Madonna_in_the_Church_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:OgFrmfnJd3r8zw at Google Cultural Institute, zoom level maximum Original artist: Jan van Eyck (circa 13901441)

File:Jan_van_Eyck_The_Madonna_in_the_Church_Detail.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Jan_van_Eyck_The_Madonna_in_the_Church_Detail.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Google Art Project [Crop] Original artist: Janvan Eyck (circa 13901441)

File:Jan_van_Eyck_The_Madonna_in_the_Church_Detail2.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Jan_van_Eyck_The_Madonna_in_the_Church_Detail2.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Google Art Project Original artist: Janvan Eyck (circa 13901441)

File:Jan_van_Eyck_The_Madonna_in_the_Church_Detail3.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Jan_van_Eyck_The_Madonna_in_the_Church_Detail3.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/gemaldegalerie-staatliche-museen-zu-berlin/artwork/the-madonna-in-the-church-jan-van-eyck/330338/ Original artist: Janvan Eyck

File:Portrait_of_a_Man_by_Jan_van_Eyck-small.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Portrait_of_a_Man_by_Jan_van_Eyck-small.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Selected work 1 from Self Portrait: Renaissance to Contem-porary (Anthony Bond, Joanna Woodall, ISBN 978-1855143579). Original artist: Jan van Eyck (circa 13901441)

File:The_Cambrai_Madonna.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/The_Cambrai_Madonna.jpg License:Public domain Contributors: http://www.thecityreview.com/byzant.html - Loan to MMA exhibition, no. 349 Original artist: Unknown

8.3 Content license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

Attribution and datingThe panelDescriptionFrame and inscriptionsArchitectureWindows and stained glass

Interpretation and iconographyLightEleusa iconMary as the ChurchPilgrimage

Lost diptych and copiesProvenanceReferences NotesSources

External linksText and image sources, contributors, and licensesTextImagesContent license