.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This is the central panel of a triptych of which the left panel is in the National Gallery, London; the right wing remained with the present panel until it was sold separately from the Thyssen-Bornemisza collection, Sotheby's, New York, 22 May 1992, lot 64A. The landscape backgrounds of the three paintings are designed to present a continuous panorama: the river running behind the Virgin in the present work flowing from that in the left wing, whilst the town in the right background here continues across into the background of the right wing. As noted by Lorne Campbell (loc. cit.; see M. Scott, A Visual History of Costume, The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, London, 1986, pp. 120-1), the clothes of the two patrons in the wings suggest a dating of the triptych to the end of the 1480s.
Remarkably, all three panels remain in their original frames, although this is the only one to bear the trompe l'oeil decoration. The frame of the left wing is inscribed 'Credendo se[n]cia[mus] q[uod] p[ro] nob[is] dep[re]ceris [Through faith we may feel that you intercede on our behalf]'; that if the right wing also originally carried an inscription that is no longer legible, although from the image in the 1914 sale catalogue one can make out that it probably began 'Nos' and probably included the word 'q[uo]d' (see Campbell, op. cit., p. 314).
The triptych was first associated with the work of Simon Marmion by Sir Claude Phillips, who attributed the left wing to the artist in a review of the Royal Academy 1904 Winter Exhibition (in which it was noted that it was 'supposed to be by the master of Jean Perreal': the attribution given to it by Hulin de Loo for the 1902 Exposition de tableaux flamands in Bruges, Perreal being the name he gave to the Master of Moulins). Max Friedländer separately attributed the centre and right panels to Marmion for the 1930 Rohoncz exhibition (loc. cit.). By then, the left wing had been given variously to: Hugo van der Goes; a Flemish artist in France or a painter working near the present Franco-Belgian border; probably a French artist; a Burgundian artist; the School of Amiens (see Campbell, op. cit., p. 315, note 11). The Marmion attribution was generally accepted until its rejection by Martin Davies in the 1955 National Gallery catalogue (loc. cit.), and subsequent authors have concurred with his view.
The most recent discussion of the attribution is that by Dr. Lorne Campbell in his 1998 catalogue of the fifteenth-century Netherlandish paintings in the National Gallery, London (loc. cit.), a summary of whose views is here presented. Dr. Campbell noted that the type of the Virgin and Child derive ultimately from Rogierian prototypes, as do the two angels. In addition, the landscape peopled with small figures recalls the work of Rogier and his followers (for example the Magdalen Reading in the National Gallery, London), as does the trompe l'oeil device of the cushion continuing onto the frame (see H. Verougstraete-Marcq and R. Van Schoute, Cadres et supports dans la peinture flamande aux 15e et 16e siècles, Heure-le-Romain, 1989, p. 328). Similar Rogierian groups of the Virgin and Child, and similar angels, recur in manuscripts associated with Marmion, for example the detached miniature in the Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin (reproduced in the catalogue of the exhibition, Renaissance Painting in Manuscripts, Treasures from the British Library, J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, 1983-4, p. 36).
Sterling had noted (op. cit., 1979, p. 38) that the face of the Virgin is of a 'Picard' type close to that in a Virgin and Child painted for the charterhouse of Thuison-lès-Abbeville by an artist close to Marmion that is comparable to Virgins in manuscripts associated with Marmion's later period (cf. the detached miniature in the Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, MS 78 B 13, no. 1; reproduced in the exhibition catalogue loc. cit., J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu). The facial types in the present triptych are comparable to the same illuminations, as well as those on the wings of the Saint Bertin altarpiece (London, National Gallery). Dr. Campbell added to Sterling's comparisons a number of Marmionesque stylistic traits in the present panels, including 'the tendency to displace the far eye, to flatten the bridge of the nose and to overemphasize the channel of the upper lip'. Noting the possible influence of illuminators in the artist's style, he suggested in conclusion that the artist may possibly have been trained in Marmion's workshop at Valenciennes, although noting that he chose not to imitate Marmion's style of landscape.
Remarkably, all three panels remain in their original frames, although this is the only one to bear the trompe l'oeil decoration. The frame of the left wing is inscribed 'Credendo se[n]cia[mus] q[uod] p[ro] nob[is] dep[re]ceris [Through faith we may feel that you intercede on our behalf]'; that if the right wing also originally carried an inscription that is no longer legible, although from the image in the 1914 sale catalogue one can make out that it probably began 'Nos' and probably included the word 'q[uo]d' (see Campbell, op. cit., p. 314).
The triptych was first associated with the work of Simon Marmion by Sir Claude Phillips, who attributed the left wing to the artist in a review of the Royal Academy 1904 Winter Exhibition (in which it was noted that it was 'supposed to be by the master of Jean Perreal': the attribution given to it by Hulin de Loo for the 1902 Exposition de tableaux flamands in Bruges, Perreal being the name he gave to the Master of Moulins). Max Friedländer separately attributed the centre and right panels to Marmion for the 1930 Rohoncz exhibition (loc. cit.). By then, the left wing had been given variously to: Hugo van der Goes; a Flemish artist in France or a painter working near the present Franco-Belgian border; probably a French artist; a Burgundian artist; the School of Amiens (see Campbell, op. cit., p. 315, note 11). The Marmion attribution was generally accepted until its rejection by Martin Davies in the 1955 National Gallery catalogue (loc. cit.), and subsequent authors have concurred with his view.
The most recent discussion of the attribution is that by Dr. Lorne Campbell in his 1998 catalogue of the fifteenth-century Netherlandish paintings in the National Gallery, London (loc. cit.), a summary of whose views is here presented. Dr. Campbell noted that the type of the Virgin and Child derive ultimately from Rogierian prototypes, as do the two angels. In addition, the landscape peopled with small figures recalls the work of Rogier and his followers (for example the Magdalen Reading in the National Gallery, London), as does the trompe l'oeil device of the cushion continuing onto the frame (see H. Verougstraete-Marcq and R. Van Schoute, Cadres et supports dans la peinture flamande aux 15e et 16e siècles, Heure-le-Romain, 1989, p. 328). Similar Rogierian groups of the Virgin and Child, and similar angels, recur in manuscripts associated with Marmion, for example the detached miniature in the Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin (reproduced in the catalogue of the exhibition, Renaissance Painting in Manuscripts, Treasures from the British Library, J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, 1983-4, p. 36).
Sterling had noted (op. cit., 1979, p. 38) that the face of the Virgin is of a 'Picard' type close to that in a Virgin and Child painted for the charterhouse of Thuison-lès-Abbeville by an artist close to Marmion that is comparable to Virgins in manuscripts associated with Marmion's later period (cf. the detached miniature in the Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, MS 78 B 13, no. 1; reproduced in the exhibition catalogue loc. cit., J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu). The facial types in the present triptych are comparable to the same illuminations, as well as those on the wings of the Saint Bertin altarpiece (London, National Gallery). Dr. Campbell added to Sterling's comparisons a number of Marmionesque stylistic traits in the present panels, including 'the tendency to displace the far eye, to flatten the bridge of the nose and to overemphasize the channel of the upper lip'. Noting the possible influence of illuminators in the artist's style, he suggested in conclusion that the artist may possibly have been trained in Marmion's workshop at Valenciennes, although noting that he chose not to imitate Marmion's style of landscape.