}.:~sa r, I ri *- 111 t I 1~ ., * #Ssu as, .' ,:i Pi,t rI I _i. 'n'"rcr I ,:" b, i;-:: i ri- -I c 1 i;; .f. f:; c; i ,: 1 I- * e 11 i I .. 1, ~~~~ 'o, ;\91+-~~~0 I fr.- 't" 1,o , 0 1- "'\ il~~~~~~~~iu f v c_ ' WA '~, -,I,:' Cw, n
opposite 23. In this detail <strong>of</strong>Joos van Cleve's Crucifixion Triptych (fig. 22), the figure with one hand on the cross and the other on the head <strong>of</strong> the donor must be that man's patron saint. He has previously been mistakenly identified as Joseph <strong>of</strong> Arimathea, but that saint, dressed quite differently, supports the head <strong>of</strong> Christ in the Entombment scene in the background. <strong>The</strong> figure in the foreground must be Saint Paul because <strong>of</strong> the attribute, a sword, that lies at his feet-just as Saint Catherine's wheel lies at her feet in the left wing <strong>of</strong> the triptych. Paul (Pauwel) was not a common Christian name in Flanders during the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, whereas in Italy "Paolo" was in wide use. <strong>The</strong> altarpiece is first recorded in a private collection in Genoa, a city with which Antwerp had close trade connections. <strong>The</strong>se factors and the inclusion <strong>of</strong> two Italian saints in the right wing suggest that he was an Italian who had business in Antwerp. 24, 25. <strong>The</strong>se portraits <strong>of</strong> Barthelemy Alatruye and Marie Pacy are sixteenth-century copies <strong>of</strong> originals probably by Robert Campin. Alatruye, who lived in Lille, died in 1446 and his wife, in 1452. <strong>The</strong> painted borders with the repeated motto Bien faire Daint (Deigned to do Well) probably reflect the original paintings' inscribed frames. <strong>The</strong> sitters would have appeared to be resting their hands upon the frames' lower edges. Musees Royaux des Beaux- <strong>Art</strong>s de Belgique, 'Brussels, on deposit at the Musee des Beaux- <strong>Art</strong>s, Tournai Independent <strong>Portraits</strong> t the close <strong>of</strong> the fourteenth century, the commissioning <strong>of</strong> independent painted portraits was primarily a prerogative <strong>of</strong> ruling noble families. <strong>The</strong>se portraits were not so much exercises in vanity as demonstrations <strong>of</strong> position and power. Collectively they established a visual record <strong>of</strong> family history that supported dynastic succession. Individu- ally they promoted in a propagandistic way the cause <strong>of</strong> the potentate: <strong>of</strong>ten copied and presumably widely distributed, such portraits served to remind the viewer <strong>of</strong> the ruler's power wherever they were displayed. With the economic prosperity and widespread affluence at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the fifteenth century, it seems to have become increasingly common for members <strong>of</strong> the lesser nobility and the wealthy bourgeoisie to commission portraits in imitation <strong>of</strong> aristocratic practice. Certainly the desire to foster a sense <strong>of</strong> family history was a factor. Couples <strong>of</strong>ten commissioned portrait diptychs that celebrated their conjugal union, such as those <strong>of</strong> Barthelemy Alatruye and his wife Marie Pacy (figs. 24, 25), sixteenth-century copies <strong>of</strong> originals painted probably by Robert Campin. In the fifteenth century coats <strong>of</strong> arms were commonly included on the frames (usually lost) or on the panels' reverses. In these copies the sitters' coats <strong>of</strong> arms are superimposed against the background field at the upper left. <strong>Flemish</strong> painters arrived empirically at the three-quarter pr<strong>of</strong>ile view, and it became the standard format in the north. In contrast to 33
- Page 1 and 2: . . 0) cn *C m ' tr -E C) O 1 'i M
- Page 3 and 4: Early Flemish Portrait 1425-1525 by
- Page 5 and 6: arly Flemish portraits command our
- Page 7 and 8: sanctum. Moreover, while the room o
- Page 9 and 10: 3. Considered during the fifteenth
- Page 11 and 12: c-ii t-,a 984---
- Page 13 and 14: 7. The features of the aristocratic
- Page 15: .I Z
- Page 18 and 19: tended as a proper portrait. Its as
- Page 20 and 21: 14. On the lower register of the ex
- Page 22 and 23: 16. Jan van Eyck's painting, dated
- Page 24: Unfortunately, much less is known a
- Page 27: 18. In Hans Memling's painting of t
- Page 31 and 32: 20. At an early but unknown date, t
- Page 33: tion. As seen particularly in works
- Page 38 and 39: 27. It has been proposed that each
- Page 40 and 41: opposite 29. Francesco d'Este, the
- Page 42 and 43: Th M ugeum s Wung Man Holding f Rug
- Page 44 and 45: traits, these artists were capable
- Page 46: 33, 34. The Metropolitan Museum's P
- Page 50 and 51: Painted by Jan Gossart, probably du
- Page 52 and 53: 36, 37. The Virgin and Child with J
- Page 54 and 55: ortrait's origunction are Any estim
- Page 56: 54 40
- Page 59 and 60: LS ::I~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , B W%t:
- Page 61 and 62: |b]~~
- Page 63 and 64: elow 50, 51. Little is known about
- Page 65 and 66: The Southern Netherlands Artists TO
- Page 67 and 68: THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART BULL
- Page 69 and 70: I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~