Madonna in the Church

depicting episodes from Marys life, while a faux sculpture in a niche shows her holding the child in a similar
pose. Erwin Panofsky sees the painting composed as if
the main gures in the panel are intended to be the sculptures come to life.[1] In a doorway to the right, two angels
sing psalms from a hymn book. Like other Byzantine depictions of the Madonna, van Eyck depicts a monumental
Mary, unrealistically large compared to her surroundings.
The panel contains closely observed beams of light ooding through the cathedrals windows. It illuminates the
interior before culminating in two pools on the oor. The
light has symbolic signicance, alluding simultaneously
to Marys virginal purity and Gods ethereal presence.[2]
Most art historians see the panel as the left wing of a
dismantled diptych; presumably its opposite wing was a
votive portrait. Near-contemporary copies by the Master
of 1499 and Jan Gossaert pair it with two very dierent
right-hand images: one is of a donor kneeling in an interior setting; the other is set outdoors, with the donor being
presented by St Anthony. Both painters made signicant
alterations to van Eycks composition, which may have
brought the image more up to date with contemporary
styles, but the copies have been described as spiritually
if 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 debated amongst scholars. At rst thought an early work by
Jan van Eyck, and for a period attributed to his brother
Hubert van Eyck, it is now denitively attributed to Jan
and believed to be a later work, demonstrating techniques
present in work from the mid-1430s and later. The panel
was acquired for the Berlin Gemldegalerie in 1874. It
was stolen in 1877 and soon returned, but without its original inscribed frame, which was never recovered.[4] Today
Madonna in the Church is widely considered one of van
Eycks nest; Millard Meiss wrote that its splendor and
subtlety of [its depiction] of light is unsurpassed in Western art.[5]

Jan van Eyck, Madonna in the Church (c. 143840). Oil on oak
panel, 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 Jan
van Eyck. Probably executed between c. 143840, it depicts the Virgin Mary holding the Child Jesus in a Gothic
cathedral. Mary is presented as Queen of Heaven wearing a jewel-studded crown, cradling a playful child Christ
who gazes at her and grips the hem of her red dress in
a manner that recalls the 13th-century Byzantine tradition of the Eleusa icon (Virgin of Tenderness). Tracery in
the arch at the rear of the nave contains wooden carvings

1 Attribution and dating

The attribution of the panel reects the progression and
trends of 19th and 20th-century scholarship on Early
Netherlandish art. It is now thought to have been completed c. 143840, but there are still arguments for dates
as early as 142429. As with the pages ascribed to Hand
G in the Turin-Milan Hours manuscript, the panel was
attributed to Jans brother Hubert van Eyck in the 1875
1

2 THE PANEL

2 The panel
2.1 Description
At 31 cm 14 cm, the paintings dimensions are small
enough to be almost considered miniature, consistent
with most 15th-century devotional diptychs. A reduced
size increased portability and aordability, and encouraged the viewer to approach the piece to more closely
see its intricate details.[11] The work shows Mary wearing a dark blue robe the colour traditionally used to
emphasise her humanity over a red dress of dierent
textured fabrics. Her hem is embroidered in gold with
gilded lettering that reads SOL and LU,[12] or perhaps
SIOR SOLE HEC ES,[13] in all probability, fragments of the
Latin words for sun (sole) and light (lux).[12] On her
head is an elaborately tiered and jeweled crown and in
her arms she carries the infant Jesus, his feet resting on
her left hand. Swaddled in a white cloth from hips trailing down beyond his feet, his hand rests on her neckline
clutching the jeweled hem of his mothers dress.[14]

Mass of the Dead. From the Turin-Milan Hours, attributed to the

anonymous Hand G, thought to be van Eyck. This work shows a
very similar gothic interior to the Berlin panel.

Gemldegalerie catalogue, and by a 1911 claim by art historian Georges Hulin de Loo.[6] This is no longer consid- The Madonna and infant Christ (detail). A statue of the
ered credible and Hubert, today, is credited with very few Madonna and Child can be seen just behind; to the right two
works.[7][8] By 1912 the painting had been denitively at- angels sing psalms.
tributed to Jan in the museum catalogue.[6]
Attempts to date it have undergone similar shifts of opinion. In the 19th century the panel was believed to be an
early work by Jan completed as early as c. 1410, although
this view changed as scholarship progressed. In the early
20th century, Ludwig von Baldass placed it around 1424
29, then for a long period it was seen as originating from
the early 1430s.[6] Erwin Panofsky provided the rst detailed treatise on the work and placed it around 143234.
However, following research from Meyer Schapiro, he revised his opinion to the late 1430s in the 1953 edition of
his Early Netherlandish Painting.[8] A 1970s comparative
study of van Eycks 1437 Saint Barbara concluded that
Madonna in the Church was completed after c. 1437.[6]
In the 1990s, Otto Pcht judged the work as probably a
late van Eyck, given the similar treatment of an interior
in the 1434 Arnolni Portrait.[9] In the early 21st century,
Jerey Chipps Smith and John Oliver Hand placed it between 1426 and 1428, claiming it as perhaps the earliest
extant signed work conrmed as by Jan.[10]

Further depictions of Mary are found in the church background. They include a statue of the Virgin and Child
positioned between two lit candles in the choir screen behind the main gures, and to the right two angels stand in
the choir singing her praises (perhaps singing the hymn
inscribed on the frame). Above her is an annunciation
relief, and in the recessed bay a relief depicting her coronation; the crucixion is shown on the rood. Thus, the
stages of Marys life as mother of Jesus are depicted in
the painting.[15] A two-column prayer tablet similar to
the one depicted in Rogier van der Weyden's large Seven
Sacraments Altarpiece (144550) hangs on a pier to the
left. It contains words alluding to and echoing the lines
on the original frame.[1] The windows of the clerestory
overlook ying buttresses, and cobwebs are visible between the arches of the vault.[16] Several dierent building phases can be seen in the arched gallery, while the
choral balcony and transept are depicted in a more contemporary style than the nave.[16]

2.3

Architecture

Closely detailed beams of light spill through the high windows and illuminate the interior, lling the portal and
owing across the tiled oors before it hits the clerestory
windows. The brilliance of the daylight is juxtaposed
with the gentle glow of the candles in the choir screen
altar, while the lower portion of the pictorial space is relatively poorly lit.[15] Shadows cast by the cathedral can
be seen across the choir steps and near aisle.[12] Their angle is rendered in an unusually realistic manner for early
1400s, and the detail is such that their description is likely
based on observation of the actual behaviour of light, a
further innovation in 15th-century art. Yet while the light
is portrayed as it might appear in nature, its source is not.
Panofsky notes that the sunlight enters from the north
windows, but contemporary churches normally had eastfacing choirs, so the light should enter from the south. He
suggests the light is not intended to be natural, but rather
to represent the divine, and hence subject to the laws of
symbolism and not those of nature.[17]

2.2

3
Harbison notes that van Eycks privately commissioned
works are unusually heavily inscribed with prayer, and
that the words may have served a similar function to
prayer tablets, or more exactly Prayer Wings, of the
type seen in the reconstructed London Virgin and Child
triptych.[20]

2.3 Architecture

Frame and inscriptions

According to Elisabeth Dhanens, the shape and rounded

top of the original frame is reminiscent of those found on
the top register of panels of the Ghent altarpiece, which
are accepted as designed by Jans brother Hubert.[6] She
believes the current frame is too narrow and small, and
contains clumsy marbling.[18] From a detailed 1851 inventory, we know the text of the hymn inscribed on original frame. The text is written in a poetic form and begun on the lower border and then extended upwards on
the vertical borders, ending on the top border.[15][19] The
lower border of the frame read FLOS FLORIOCOLORUM
APPELLARIS ; the sides and top MATTER HEC EST FILLIA
PATER EST NATUS QUIS AUDIVIT TALIA DEUS HOMO NATUS ETCET (The mother is the daughter. This father is

born. Who has heard of such a thing? God born a man).

The fth stanza of the hymn (not included in van Eycks
transcription) 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 of
her robe echoes the inscription on the frame, words similar to those found on Marys dress in van Eycks 1436
Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele,[16] a passage
from the Book of Wisdom (7:29) reading EST ENIM HAEC
SPECIOSIOR SOLE ET SUPER OMNEM STELLARUM DISPOSITIONEM. LUCI CONPARATA INVENITUR PRIOR (For she

is more beautiful than the sun, and excels every constellation of the stars. Compared with the light she is found
to be superior).[12]
Some historians have suggested that the inscriptions were
intended to breathe life into the other statues and depictions of Mary.[15] Others, including Craig Harbison,
believe they were purely functional; given that contemporary diptychs were commissioned for private devotion
and reection, the inscriptions were meant to be read as
an incantation or were personalised indulgence prayers.

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

Van Eycks earlier work often shows churches and cathedrals in older Romanesque style, sometimes to represent
the Temple in Jerusalem as an appropriate historical setting, with decoration drawn exclusively from the Old Tes-

4
tament.[21] That is clearly not the case here the Christ
Child occupies the same space as a large rood cross depicting him being crucied. The church in this panel
is contemporary Gothic a choice perhaps intended to
associate Mary with the Ecclesia Triumphans while
her pose and oversized scale are indebted to the forms
and conventions of Byzantine art and the International
Gothic.[22] Van Eyck details the architecture with a precision not seen before in northern European painting.[15]

2 THE PANEL
Church, Ghent, the Basilica of St Denis, Dijon Cathedral,
Lige Cathedral and Cologne Cathedral,[26] as well as the
basilica of Our Lady in Tongeren, which contains a very
similar triforium gallery and clerestory.[25] Tongeren is
one of a minority of churches in the region aligned on a
north-east to south-west axis, so that the lighting conditions in the painting can be seen on summer mornings.[27]
In addition, the church contains a standing statue of the
Virgin and Child (the Virgin with a tall crown), once credited with miraculous powers, though the current statue
post-dates van Eyck.[28]
Pcht described the work in terms of an interior illusion, noting the manner in which the viewers eye falls
across the nave, the crossing, but only then, [is he] looking through and over the rood screen, the choir. From
this Pcht views the perspective as deliberately lacking
cohesion, as the relationship between the parts of the
building is not shown in full ... The transition from foreground to background is ingeniously masked by the gure
of the Madonna herself, who obscures the crossing pier;
the middle ground is practically eliminated and our eye
crosses over it without our becoming aware of it. The
illusion is enhanced by the use of colour to suggest light:
the interior is dim and in shadow while the unseen exterior seems bathed in bright light.[29]

2.4 Windows and stained glass

The crucixion in the upper right portion of the panel

The dierent elements of the cathedral are so specically

detailed and the elements of Gothic and contemporary
architecture so well delineated, that art and architecture
historians have concluded that van Eyck must have had
enough architectural knowledge to make nuanced distinctions. More so, given the nesse of the descriptions,
many scholars have tried to link the painting with a particular building.[23] Yet, and as with all buildings in van
Eycks work, the structure is imagined and probably an
idealised formation of what he viewed as a perfect architectural space. This is evident from a number of features
that would be unlikely in a contemporary church, such as
the placing of a round arched triforium above a pointed
colonnade.[24]
Several art historians have reasoned why van Eyck did
not model the interior on any actual building. Most
agree that he sought to create an ideal and perfect space
for Marys apparition,[25] and aimed for visual impact
rather than physical possibility. Buildings suggested as
possible (at least partial) sources include Saint Nicholas

Unusual for a 13th-century Gothic cathedral, most of the

windows are of clear glass.[15] Looking at the windows
running along the nave, John L. Ward observed that the
window directly above the suspended crucix is the only
one whose uppermost portion is visible. That window
directly faces the viewer, revealing intricately designed
stained glass panels that show intertwined red and blue
owers. Because the window is so far back in the pictorial
space, where perspective is becoming faint, the proximity
of the owers to the crucix lends them the appearance
of coming forward in space, as if [they] had suddenly
grown from the top of the crucix in front of it.[30]
Ward does not believe this a trick of the eye resulting from
loss of perspective towards the high reaches of the panel.
Instead he sees it as a subtle reference to the iconography
and mythology of the Book of Genesis' Tree of life, which
he describes here as reborn in Christs death. He does
acknowledge the subtlety of the illusion, and the fact that
neither of the two well known near copies include the motif. The idea of owers shown as if sprouting from the top
of the cross may have been borrowed from Masaccio's c.
1426 Crucixion, where owers are placed on the upper
portion of the vertical beam of the cross. Ward concludes
than van Eyck took the idea even further by showing the
owers emanating from another source, and sought to depict the actual moment where the tree of life is reborn
and the cross comes to life and sprouts owers as one
watches.[30]

3.2

Eleusa icon

Interpretation and iconography

3.1

Light

In the early 15th century, Mary held a central position in

Christian iconography and was often portrayed as the one
in whom the Word was made esh, a direct result of the
work of the divine light.[31] During the medieval period,
light acted as a visual symbol for both the immaculate
conception and Christs birth; it was believed that he was
made manifest by Gods light passing through Marys
body, just as light shines through a window pane.[32]
The divine represented by light is a motif in keeping with
the sentiment of both the Latin text on the hem of Marys
dress (which compares her beauty and radiance to that
of divine light)[17] and on the frame. A separate source
of light, which also behaves as if from a divine rather
than natural source, illuminates her face. The two pools
of light behind her have been described as lending the
painting a mystical atmosphere, indicating the presence
of God.[12] In the niche behind her, the statues are lit by
two candles - symbols of the incarnation, whereas she is
bathed in natural light.[15] The articial light adds to the
overall illusion of the interior of the church, which Pcht
views as achieved mainly through colour.[33]
Light became a popular means for 15th-century Northern painters to represent the mystery of the Incarnation,
utilising the idea of light passing through glass without
shattering it to convey the paradox of conception and
"virgo intacta". This is reected in a passage attributed
to Bernard of Clairvaux from his Sermones de Diversis";
Just as the brilliance of the sun lls and penetrates a glass
window without damaging it, and pierces its solid form
with imperceptible subtlety, neither hurting it when entering nor destroying it when emerging: thus the word of
God, the splendor of the Father, entered the virgin chamber and then came forth from the closed womb.[34]
Before the early Netherlandish period, divine light was
not well described: if a painter wanted to depict heavenly radiance, he typically painted an object in reective
gold. There was a focus on describing the object itself
rather than the eect of the light as it fell across it. Van
Eyck was one of the rst to portray lights saturation, illuminating eects and gradations as it poured across the
pictorial space. He detailed how an objects colour could
vary depending on the amount and type of light illuminating it. This play of light is evident across the panel,
and especially seen on Marys gilded dress and jewelled
crown, across her hair and on her mantle.[33]

3.2

Annunciation, Jan van Eyck, c 1434. National Gallery of Art,

Washington DC. This is perhaps the best known of van Eycks
Madonna paintings where the gures seem overlarge compared
with the architecture. However, in this work there are no architectural ttings to give a clear scale to the building.

Eleusa icon

The panel is, with the Antwerp Madonna at the Fountain,

broadly accepted as one of van Eycks two late Madonna
and Child paintings before his death in about 1441. Both
show a standing Virgin dressed in blue. In both works,

Marys positioning and colourisation contrasts with his

earlier surviving treatments of the subject, in which she
was typically seated and dressed in red. Models for standing Virgins existed in the icons of Byzantine art, and both
paintings also represent modied versions of the eleusa

INTERPRETATION AND ICONOGRAPHY

3.3 Mary as the Church

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

Cambrai Cathedral

type, sometimes called the Virgin of Tenderness in English, where the Virgin and Child touch cheeks, and the
child caresses Marys face.[35]
During the 14th and 15th centuries, a large number of
these works were imported into northern Europe, and
were widely copied by the rst generation of Netherlandish artists, among others.[36] The iconography of
both the late Byzantine typied by the unknown
artist responsible for the Cambrai Madonna and 14thcentury successors such as Giotto favoured presenting
the Madonna on a monumental scale. Undoubtedly van
Eyck absorbed these inuences, though when and through
which works is disputed. It is believed that he had rsthand exposure to them during his visit to Italy, which occurred either in 1426 or 1428, before the Cambrai icon
was brought to the North.[37] Van Eycks two Madonna
panels carried forward the habit of reproduction and were
themselves frequently copied by commercial workshops
throughout the 15th century.[38][39]
It is possible that the Byzantine avour to these images
was also connected with contemporary attempts through
diplomacy to achieve reconciliation with the Greek Orthodox Church, in which van Eycks patron Philip the
Good took a keen interest. Van Eycks Portrait of Cardinal Niccol Albergati (c. 1431) depicts one of the papal
diplomats most involved with these eorts.[40]

Van Eyck gives Mary three roles: Mother of Christ, the

personication of the "Ecclesia Triumphans" and Queen
of Heaven, the latter apparent from her jewel-studded
crown.[11] The paintings near miniature size contrasts
with Marys unrealistically large stature compared with
her setting. She physically dominates the cathedral; her
head is almost level with the approximately sixty feet high
gallery.[11] This distortion of scale is found in a number
of other van Eycks Madonna paintings, where the arches
of the mostly gothic interior do not allow headroom for
the virgin. Pcht describes the interior as a throne
room, which envelopes her as if a carrying case.[41]
Her monumental stature reects a tradition reaching back
to an Italo-Byzantine type perhaps best known through
Giotto's Ognissanti Madonna (c. 1310) and emphasises
her identication with the cathedral itself. Till-Holger
Borchert says that van Eyck did not paint her as the
Madonna in a church, but instead as metaphor, presenting Mary as the Church.[16] This idea that her size represents her embodiment as the church was rst suggested
by Erwin Panofsky in 1941. Art historians in the 19th
century, who thought the work was executed early in van
Eycks career, attributed her scale as the mistake of a relatively immature painter.[42]
The composition is today seen as deliberate, and opposite
to both his Madonna of Chancellor Rolin and Arnolni
Portrait. These works show interiors seemingly too small
to contain the gures, a device van Eyck used to create and emphasise an intimate space shared by donor
and saint.[43] The Virgins height recalls his Annunciation
of 143436, although in that composition there are no
architectural ttings to give a clear scale to the building. Perhaps reecting the view of a relatively immature
painter, a copy of the Annunciation by Joos van Cleve
shows Mary at a more realistic proportion scale to her
surroundings.[11]
Mary is presented as a Marian apparition; in this case
she probably appears before a donor, who would have
been kneeling in prayer in the now lost opposite panel.[1]
The idea of a saint appearing before laity was common
in Northern art of the period,[44] and is also represented
in van Eycks Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele
(143436). There, the Canon is portrayed as if having
just momentarily paused to reect on a passage from his
hand-held bible as the Virgin and Child with two saints
appear before him, as if embodiments of his prayer.[45]

3.4 Pilgrimage
As a prayer tablet placed on a pier was a distinctive trait
of pilgrimage churches, Harbison sees the panel as partly
concerned with the phenomenon of pilgrimage. This
type of tablet contained specic prayers whose recitation
in front of a particular image or in the church was believed to attract an indulgence, or remission of time in

7
Purgatory. The statue of the Virgin and Child in the niche
behind Marys left shoulder might represent such an image, whereas the inscription of a Nativity hymn around
the lost frame, ending in ETCET , i.e. etcetera, would
have told the viewer to recite the whole hymn, perhaps
for an indulgence. The purpose of the picture, therefore,
may have been to represent and bring the act of pilgrimage to a domestic setting. This would have been attractive
to Philip the Good who, though he made many pilgrimages in person, is recorded as paying van Eyck to perform
one on his behalf in 1426, apparently an acceptable practice in Late Medieval celestial accounting.[46]

crucixion and the windows directly behind it, which are

at a right angle to the nave and centre front, facing the
viewer are at the left of the panel, facing right.[48]

Harbison believes the panel is almost certainly only the

left-hand half of a devotional diptych.[49] Dhanens observes how Marys eyeline extends beyond the horizon of
her panel, a common feature of Netherlandish diptychs
and triptychs, where the saints gaze is directed towards
an accompanying image of a donor.[18] Other indicators
include the unusually oblique architectural aspect of the
church, which suggests that its depiction was intended to
extend across to a sister wing in a manner similar to the
The Virgin and Child at the forefront might represent the Master of Flemalle's Annunciation,[18] and especially in
background statues coming to life; at the time such an van der Weydens c. 1452 Braque Triptych, where contiapparition was considered the highest form of pilgrimage nuity between the panels is especially emphasised.[50]
experience. Their poses are similar and her tall crown is
typical of those seen on statues rather than either royalty
or painted gures of the Virgin. Harbison further suggests that the two pools of light on the oor echo the two
candles on either side of one of the statues, and notes that
the copies described below retain the prayer tablet, one
bringing it nearer to the foreground.[46]

Lost diptych and copies

Jan Gossaert ?, Virgin in the Church, c. 151015,

Galleria Doria Pamphilj, Rome. This panel has sometimes been attributed to Gerard David.[51]

Master of 1499, Madonna and Child with a Portrait of Abbot

Christiaan de Hondt. Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,
Antwerp.

Most art historians believe that there are a number of indicators that the panel was the left-hand wing of a dismantled diptych. The frame contains clasps, implying it
was once hinged to a second panel.[47] The work seems
composed to be symmetrically balanced towards an accompanying right-hand wing: Mary is positioned slightly
to the right of centre, while her downward, almost coy
glance is directed at a space beyond the edge of the panel, St Anthony with a Donor, c.
suggesting that she is looking at, or in the direction of, a Pamphilj, Rome
kneeling donor in a right-hand wing. The visible architectural features with the exception of the niches, the

1513.

Galleria Doria

Two near-contemporary copies, usually attributed to the

Ghent Master of 1499 and Jan Gossaert,[52] were completed while the original was in the collection of Margaret
of Austria, great-granddaughter of Philip the Good. Both
present variants of the Madonna panel as the left wing
of a devotional diptych, with a donor portrait as the right
wing.[53] However, the two donor panels have very dierent settings. The 1499 version shows the Cistercian abbot
Christiaan de Hondt praying in his luxurious quarters,[48]
while Gossaert presents the donor Antonio Siciliano, accompanied by Saint Anthony, in a panoramic landscape
setting. It is not known if either work is based on an original left-hand panel painted by van Eyck.[54]
The 1499 Madonna panel is a free adaption, in that the
artist has changed and repositioned a number of elements. However art historians usually agree that they
are to the detriment of the balance and impact of the
composition.[3] The panel attributed to Gossaert shows
even more signicant, though perhaps more successful, alterations, including shifting the centre of balance
by adding a section to the right-hand side, dressing the
Virgin entirely in dark blue and changing her facial
features.[55] Both copies omit the two pools of bright light
on the oor across from her, thus removing the mystical element of van Eycks original,[56] perhaps because
its signicance was not grasped by the later artists.[57]
That Gossaert followed other aspects of the original so
closely, however, is evidence of the high regard he held
for van Eycks technical and aesthetic ability, and his version has been seen by some as a homage.[58] The Master
of 1499s admiration for van Eyck can be seen in his lefthand panel, which contains many features reminiscent of
van Eycks Arnolni Portrait, including the rendering of
the ceiling beams and the colour and texture of the red
fabrics.[48]

REFERENCES

was returned. Historian Lon de Laborde documented an

altarpiece in a village near Nantes in 1851 a Madonna
in a church nave holding the Christ Child in her right
arm which he described as painted on wood, very well
preserved, still in its original frame.[19] The description
contains a detailing of the frames inscription.[60] A document from 1855 records a Virgin in the Church thought to
be by Hubert and Jan van Eyck, which may be the same
painting. It belonged to a Monsieur Nau, who had bought
it for 50 francs from the housekeeper of Francois Cacault,
a French diplomat who had acquired a number of paintings from Italy.[19]
A panel very similar in description was purchased by the
Aachen art collector Barthold Suermondt sometime during the 1860s and catalogued in 1869 with a detailing of
the frames inscription. This work was thought to have
come from Nantes,[60] suggesting it was the same as the
panel mentioned in 1851. The Suermondt collection was
acquired by the Berlin museum in May 1874, as part
of an acquisition of 219 paintings.[61] The painting was
stolen in March 1877, generating worldwide news coverage; it was recovered ten days later, but without the
original frame.[62] The 1875 Berlin museum catalogue attributes a van Eyck imitator; the 1883 catalogue describes
the original as lost and the Berlin painting a copy. Soon
after, however, its authenticity was veried, and the 1904
Berlin catalogue attributed Jan.[6]

Philip the Good may have been the original patron, given
that a painting matching its description was recorded in
a 1567 inventory of his great-granddaughter Margaret of
Austria, who inherited the majority of Philips collection.
The description in her record reads, "Un autre tableau
de Nostre-Dame, du duc Philippe, qui est venu de Maillardet, couvert de satin brouch gris, et ayant fermaulx
d'argent dor et bord de velours vert. Fait de la main JoAround 152030, the Ghent illuminator and miniaturist hannes."[63] From the naming conventions known from
Simon Bening produced a half-length Virgin and Child the collections inventory, Johannes probably refers to
that closely resembles van Eycks panel, to the extent that van Eyck, duc Philippe to Philip.[47]
it can be considered a loose copy. However, it can be
more closely related to the original Cambrai Madonna especially in its retention of the halo, which was considered 6 References
old fashioned by the 15th century. Benings Madonna is
distinct to the two earlier copies of van Eyck; it was intended as a stand-alone panel, not part of a diptych, and 6.1 Notes
though compositionally similar, radically departs from
[1] Harbison (1995), 99
the original, especially in its colourisation. It is thought
that Benings work was informed by Gossaerts panel [2] Smith (2004), 64
rather than directly by van Eycks.[51][59]
[3] Koch (1967), 48. See also Panofsky (1953), 487
[4] Harbison (1995), 177

Provenance

The provenance of the work contains many gaps, and

even the better-documented periods are often complicated or murky, according to Dhanens. There is almost
no record from the early 16th century through 1851, and
the theft in 1877 leaves doubt for some as to what exactly

[5] Meiss (1945), 179

[6] Dhanens (1980), 323
[7] Till-Holger Borchert mentions that although Hurbert enjoyed a brief re-ourish in the early 20th century, during the latter half of the 19th century some scholars
were claiming he was the invention of the 16th century,

6.1

Notes

by ercely patriotic Ghent humanists, and a ctitious

character who had never actually lived, let alone been an
important painter. See Borchert (2008), 12
[8] Panofsky & Wuttke (2006), 552
[9] Pcht (1999), 205

[41] Pcht (1999), 203205

[42] Panofsky (1953), 145
[43] Harbison (1991), 100
[44] Harbison (1995), 96

[10] Smith (2004), 61

[11] Harbison (1995), 169187
[12] Smith (2004), 63

[45] Rothstein (2005), 50

[46] Harbison (1991), 177178

[13] Meiss (1945), 180

[47] Kittell & Suydam (2004), 212

[14] Weale (1908), 167

[48] Smith (2004), 65

[15] Meiss (1945), 179181

[49] Harbison (1995), 98

[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 of Western Art (From Gothic
to 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: Temporalities of German Renaissance Art. University of Chicago
Press, 2008. 19596. ISBN 0-226-90597-7
[25] Harbison (1995), 101
[26] Dhanens (1980), 328

[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 questioned in favour of van Eycks pupil Gerard David, based
on stylistic similarities and the fact that Gossaert is not
usually associated with outdoor or landscape panels. Or,
if Gossaerts hand is accepted, it may be that it was not intended as a diptych wing and the right wing was designed
by a member of Gerards workshop. The Madonna panel
contains far fewer indicators of being a pendant, that is an
accompanying but unattached panel, than van Eycks original, 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

[27] Harbison (1991), 172176

[28] Harbison (1991), 178179

[56] Jones (2011), 36

[29] Pcht (1999), 204

[57] Harbison (1991), 176

[30] Ward (1994), 17

[58] Jones (2011), 37

[31] Walters Art Museum (1962), xv

[33] Pcht (1999), 14

[59] Ainsworth, Marion; Evans, Helen C. (ed.). Byzantium,

Faith and Power (12611557). Metropolitan Museum of
Art, Yale University Press, 2004. 582588. ISBN 158839-114-0

[34] Meiss (1945), 176

[60] Meiss (1945), 175

[32] Meiss (1945), 177

[35] Harbison (1991), 158162

[61] Dhanens (1980), 361

[36] See Evans (2004), 545593

[37] Harbison (1995), 156
[38] Jolly (1998), 396
[39] Harbison (1991), 159163
[40] Harbison (1991), 163167

[62] The person returning the painting claimed to have bought

it for about 17 Groschen. See Dhanens (1980), 323
[63] Correspondance de l'empereur Maximilien Ier et de Marguerite d'Autriche ... de 1507 1519 (in French). Socit de l'histoire de France, Volumes 1617. Paris: J. Renouard et cie, 1839

10

6.2

Sources

Ainsworth, Maryan Wynn; Alsteens, Stijn; Orenstein, 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. New
York: Tabard Press. 1980, ISBN 0-914427-00-8
Evans, Helen C. (ed.), Byzantium, Faith and
Power (12611557), 2004, Metropolitan Museum
of Art/Yale University Press. ISBN 1-58839-114-0
Hand, John Oliver; Metzger, Catherine; Spron, Ron.
Prayers and Portraits: Unfolding the Netherlandish
Diptych. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2006. ISBN 0-300-12155-5
Harbison, Craig. Realism and Symbolism in Early
Flemish Painting. The Art Bulletin, Volume 66, No.
4, December 1984. 588602

EXTERNAL LINKS

Meiss, Millard. Light as Form and Symbol in Some

Fifteenth-Century Paintings. The Art Bulletin, Volume 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 Early
Netherlandish Painting. 1999. London: Harvey
Miller Publishers. ISBN 1-872501-28-1
Panofsky, Erwin. Early Netherlandish painting: Its
Origins and Character. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1953.
Panofsky, Erwin; Wuttke, Dieter (ed). Korrespondenz 1950 1956 Band III. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006. ISBN 3-447-05373-9
Rothstein, Bret. Sight and Spirituality in Early
Netherlandish Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-521-83278-0
Smith, Jerey Chipps. The Northern Renaissance.
London: Phaidon Press, 2004. ISBN 0-7148-38675

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

Snyder, James. The Northern Renaissance: Painting,

Sculpture, the Graphic Arts from 1350 to 1575. New
York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1985. ISBN 0-81091081-0

Harbison, Craig. Jan van Eyck, The Play of Realism.

London: Reaktion Books, 1991. ISBN 0-94846218-3

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

Jolly, Penny. Jan van Eycks Italian Pilgrimage: A

Miraculous Florentine Annunciation and the Ghent
Altarpiece. Zeitschrift fr Kunstgeschichte. 61.
Bd., H. 3, 1998. JSTOR 1482990
Jones, Susan Frances. Van Eyck to Gossaert. London: National Gallery, 2011. ISBN 1-85709-504-9
Kittell, Ellen; Suydam, Mary. The Texture of Society: Medieval Women in the Southern Low Countries: Women in Medieval Flanders. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. ISBN 0-312-29332-1
Koch, Robert A. Copies of Rogier van der Weydens Madonna in Red. Record of the Art Museum,
Princeton University, Volume 26, No. 2, 1967. 46
58
Lane, Barbara. The Altar and the Altarpiece,
Sacramental Themes in Early Netherlandish Painting. New York: Harper & Row, 1984. ISBN 0-06430133-8
Lyman, Thomas. Architectural Portraiture and
Jan van Eycks Washington Annunciation. Gesta,
Volume 20, No. 1, in Essays in Honor of Harry
Bober, 1981.

Walters Art Museum. The International Style: The

Arts in Europe around 1400. Exhibition: October
23 December 2, 1962. Baltimore, MD.
Ward, John. Disguised Symbolism as Enactive
Symbolism in Van Eycks Paintings. Artibus et Historiae, 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 Netherlandish painting. National Gallery of Art Washington. Oxford University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-52134016-0

7 External links
Van Eycks The Madonna in the Church at
Smarthistory

11

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

8.1

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, Amandajm, Casliber, Nick Number, Yomangani, Davidonline, Magioladitis, Johnbod, Graham Beards, WereSpielChequers, Randy Kryn, Kafka
Liz, EoGuy, Hafspajen, Arjayay, Indopug, Addbot, Yobot, Victoriaearle, AnomieBOT, Materialscientist, Citation bot, Kalamkaar, LilHelpa, 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
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/14th-century_painters_-_Page_from_the_Tr%C3%A8s_Belles_
Source:
Heures_de_Notre_Dame_de_Jean_de_Berry_-_WGA16015.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Web Gallery of Art: <a
href='http://www.wga.hu/art/zgothic/miniatur/1401-450/3tres/08n_1400.jpg' data-x-rel='nofollow'><img alt='Inkscape.svg' src='https:
//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Inkscape.svg/20px-Inkscape.svg.png' width='20' height='20' srcset='https:
//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Inkscape.svg/30px-Inkscape.svg.png 1.5x,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Inkscape.svg/40px-Inkscape.svg.png 2x' data-le-width='60' data-le-height='60' /></a> Image <a
href='http://www.wga.hu/html/zgothic/miniatur/1401-450/3tres/08n_1400.html' data-x-rel='nofollow'><img alt='Information icon.svg'
src='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Information_icon.svg/20px-Information_icon.svg.png' width='20'
height='20' srcset='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Information_icon.svg/30px-Information_icon.svg.png
1.5x, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Information_icon.svg/40px-Information_icon.svg.png 2x' data-lewidth='620' data-le-height='620' /></a> 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 van
Eyck (circa 13901441)
File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Diptych_Master_of_1499.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Diptych_Master_of_1499.jpg License: 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: <a href='http://www.wga.hu/art/g/gossart/01altar/
2doria1.jpg' data-x-rel='nofollow'><img alt='Inkscape.svg' src='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Inkscape.
svg/20px-Inkscape.svg.png' width='20' height='20' srcset='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Inkscape.svg/
30px-Inkscape.svg.png 1.5x, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Inkscape.svg/40px-Inkscape.svg.png 2x'
data-le-width='60' data-le-height='60' /></a> Image (WGA has given permission for use of images on Wikipedia.) Original artist: Jan
Gossaert
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: Jan
van 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: Jan
van 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: Jan
van 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 Contemporary (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