Early Flemish Portraits 1425-1525: The Metropolitan Museum of Art ...
Early Flemish Portraits 1425-1525: The Metropolitan Museum of Art ...
Early Flemish Portraits 1425-1525: The Metropolitan Museum of Art ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
2. According to legend, Saint<br />
Luke was a painter and depicted<br />
the Virgin Mary at least once. In<br />
this work <strong>of</strong> about 1435-40 by<br />
Rogier van der Weyden, Luke<br />
draws her portrait in silverpoint.<br />
<strong>The</strong> composition <strong>of</strong> the painting is<br />
freely adapted from one by Jan van<br />
Eyck in the Louvre thatfeatures a<br />
portrait <strong>of</strong> the donor Nicholas<br />
Rolin praying to the Virgin and<br />
Child. It has been suggested that<br />
this work, and two other versions,<br />
in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich,<br />
and the State Hermitage <strong>Museum</strong>,<br />
Leningrad, are contemporary exact<br />
copies <strong>of</strong> a lost original by van der<br />
Weyden. <strong>Museum</strong> <strong>of</strong> Fine <strong>Art</strong>s,<br />
Boston, Gift <strong>of</strong> Mr. and Mrs.<br />
Henry Lee Higginson, 93.153<br />
venerated. <strong>The</strong> image owes its appeal to an especially<br />
tender treatment <strong>of</strong> the subject, with<br />
mother and child embracing cheek to cheek,<br />
but the source <strong>of</strong> its subsequent fame was its<br />
reputation for effecting miracles. In 1454 a<br />
member <strong>of</strong> the cathedral chapter commis-<br />
sioned Petrus Christus to make three copies <strong>of</strong><br />
the picture, and in the next year he ordered<br />
from Hayne de Bruxelles twelve more, one <strong>of</strong><br />
which is generally considered to be a picture in<br />
Kansas City (fig. 4). <strong>The</strong> <strong>Museum</strong>'s exceptionally<br />
fine Virgin and Child by Dieric Bouts<br />
(fig. 5) is obviously derived from the same<br />
model, although slightly removed. This work<br />
is remarkable for its natural detail-the com-<br />
monness <strong>of</strong> the Virgin's hands, for instance-<br />
yet its dependence upon what the artist quite<br />
possibly believed to be an authentic portrait <strong>of</strong><br />
the Virgin cannot be denied.<br />
Can we question whether Bouts considered<br />
this work to be a portrait It is not, <strong>of</strong> course.<br />
<strong>The</strong> difference between Bouts's Virgin and<br />
Child and a true portrait lies not so much in<br />
the religious theme <strong>of</strong> the subject as in the<br />
relationship between the artist and the subject.<br />
<strong>The</strong> difference in the relationship can be<br />
demonstrated by comparing the Bouts to the<br />
<strong>Museum</strong>'s Portrait <strong>of</strong> a Carthusian by Petrus<br />
Christus (figs. 6, 28), dated 1446. Because <strong>of</strong><br />
the incised gold halo, it has been suggested