Man in Prayer

The Painting: One of the highlights of The Met’s early Netherlandish painting collection is the wide range and depth of its portraiture, featuring notable examples of elderly men by artists such as Hans Memling (14.40.648), Hugo van der Goes and his circle (2010.118, 22.60.53), the Master of Egmond (32.100.122), and Marten van Heemskerck (71.36). Added to these is the sympathetic portrayal of an old man, who expresses a sense of deep concentration, as he raises his hands in prayer toward the object of his devotion at the left. This panel presumably was the right half of a diptych, the lost part of which may have been an image of a Virgin and Child. The man’s luxurious dark-purple robe trimmed with fur indicates his wealthy status, but there are no clues about his profession or any other aspects of his life. His thinning grey hair, furrowed brow, crow’s feet at his eyes, white stubble of his beard, and sagging flesh at his neck document the signs of advanced age. The uniformly dark background and tight cropping of the portrait project the figure toward the viewer. Although the panel has been trimmed on all sides (see Technical Notes), it cannot be by much. A later copy on copper in the Pinacoteca Civico “Tosio-Martinengo,” Brescia, shows the portrait in its uncropped state with only slightly larger dimensions (see fig. 1 above).

The Attribution and Date: Georges Hulin de Loo (1926) was the first to publish this portrait, noting its stylistic similarities to works by both Robert Campin and Rogier van der Weyden, although he ultimately favored the latter attribution. Since then, scholars have vacillated on the attribution, some favoring Robert Campin (Renders 1931, de Tolnay 1939, Eisler 1961, Frinta 1966, Huysmans 1967, Campbell 1996, Ainsworth 1998, and Thurlemann 2002), and others, Rogier van der Weyden (Friedländer 1926, Hulin de Loo 1926, Destrée 1930, Panofsky 1953, Winkler 1956, Bruyn 1973, and Sander 2009). All recognized the highly skilled, nuanced rendering of the sitter’s face. Relatively few portraits by Campin have survived. The most notable among these is the pair in the National Gallery, London: Portrait of a Man and Portrait of a Woman of around 1435 (figs. 2, 3). They characteristically show a tightly cropped composition, a three-quarter turn of the figures in space, and strong illumination that convincingly defines the sculptural quality of the heads and their facial features. However, the emphatic three-dimensionality of these portraits is less pronounced in the Man in Prayer. Instead, his face is more naturalistic and more softly modeled than those of Campin’s physiognomies, and closer to the portraits by Rogier van der Weyden and his workshop. The hands, too, although heavily abraded, are similar to those of Rogier’s sitters in their presentation parallel to the picture plane, the attenuated and slightly crooked fingers, and the strongly articulated thumbnail (figs. 4–7).

The Met’s Man in Prayer fits most comfortably within a group of devotional donor portraits by Rogier and his workshop that show the same compositional formula (figs. 4–7). The slightly turned angle of the body in space is identical in each, with the praying hands located in a natural position at the lower left corner of the painting. This emphasizes the contour at the left side of the head, setting off the light flesh tones against the dark background, and, in The Met portrait, featuring the white stubble of the man’s beard along his proper right cheek. Characteristically, the sitter’s near left eye is on the central vertical axis of the painting, while the bottom of his chin marks half its height. The elegance of the drawing of facial features is emphasized by the uninterrupted line that follows the sitter’s right brow down the length of his nose and precisely articulates each finger of his hands. Also typical for Rogier is the continuous line from the top of the man’s index finger that continues down to the base of his thumb, seeming to bisect it. The slightly turned pose of the head allows for its broad illumination and detailed description. Light models form, defining with judiciously placed shadows the jawline and neck, the prominence of the nose over the mouth, and allowing the eyes to be expressively featured. The Met’s portrait conforms to all of these Rogerian conventions. However, even acknowledging the abraded condition (see Technical Notes), the man’s facial features, nonetheless, are more softly modeled than Rogier’s donor portraits. Rogier’s extant portraits date to the 1460s, and it is therefore likely that the Man in Prayer represents an earlier date when Rogier’s style was not yet set with the more sharply defined elegance of line and attenuated form, as we find, for example, in The Met’s Portrait of Francesco d’Este of ca. 1460 (32.100.43. Jochen Sander has called attention to the softer and more painterly approach of The Met portrait, noting its stylistic similarity to the Portrait of a Man in the Borromeo Collection, Isola Bella (Sander 2009; fig. 8), which has been attributed to the workshop of Rogier an der Weyden in the 1440s. Painted on parchment, set onto panel, and over-cleaned in the past, this portrait has suffered. However, the extraordinary sensitivity of the rendering and the particular execution of the features of the face—eyes, nose, mouth, and especially neckline and ears, so softly modeled—are closely related to The Met portrait. The attire of the Man in Prayer was fashionable in the 1430s to around 1445 (Hulin de Loo 1926). This and dendrochronology, which dates the panel on which the portrait was painted to around 1437 or after (see Technical Notes), indicates that The Met portrait was also likely painted around 1440.

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2022

Support: The support was constructed from a single oak plank, with the grain oriented vertically. Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1423 with a more plausible date of 1429 onwards.[1] The wood originated in the Baltic/Polish region. At some point before entering The Met’s collection, the panel appears to have been cut down at the top and the right edges. Traces of a barbe can be seen on the bottom edge at the far left and on the left edge at the very top—most easily viewed in the x-radiograph—which indicates that the original edges of the painting are largely preserved on the bottom and the left (see fig. 9 above). Considering the tightly cropped composition, the top and right edges must have been trimmed by only a small amount.

The reverse of the panel was planed down and cradled at an unknown date; the panel now measures 5 mm thick on average. There is a very narrow non-original strip of wood attached to the right edge of the panel; this seems to have been inserted when the painting was cradled.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a white ground, estimated to be chalk-based, followed by a lead white-containing priming layer. The priming appears to have been applied thickly, with broad stokes, generally running diagonally across the panel. The brushstrokes of the priming can be seen in a strong light and appear quite radio-opaque in the x-radiograph. The priming layer may be lightly pigmented although it is not possible to ascertain its composition without removing paint samples.

Examination with infrared reflectography revealed some underdrawn lines, executed using a liquid medium.[2] The lines are quite minimal, restricted to contours, but often quite closely followed by the painted contours and thus are difficult to distinguish (fig. 10). This liquid underdrawing is most easily observed at the sitter’s ear, which was underdrawn to the left of the final painted ear, and at the contours of the nose and chin, where the features were very slightly adjusted in the painting.

Paint Layers: The painting technique is impressive for its naturalistic rendering of the sitter’s face and, in particular, the attention to tiny details. In one example, the stubble on the man’s cheek and chin was created with great care and set off against the solid black background through a canny strategy. After finalizing the contour, the artist painted a series of tiny strokes of black paint at the boundary between the background and the cheek. In the intervals he then added the white and grey hairs that protrude slightly out into the background, as if the light is just catching them (fig. 11).

The use of lead white in the fleshtones, more clearly evident in the x-radiograph, is precise and generally restricted to highlights. Close examination under the microscope suggested that the artist may have created the fleshtones by first laying in a mid-tone overall and then adding highlights and shadows sparingly. This technique may have helped him to create the lifelike sense of warmth in the face, with a minimal buildup of paint. Interestingly, it appears that in the initial stages of painting the artist sketched the sitter’s eyes using a translucent red paint, possibly a lake, now all but covered by the final paint.

The artist made several slight adjustments to his composition during the course of painting. These were generally small shifts to the position of contours, such as in his ear, his proper right shoulder, and the length of his sleeve. The artist also altered the appearance of the collar, initially leaving a reserve for a lower and slightly wider lapel, now somewhat apparent as a pentiment.

The paint layers are somewhat rubbed, particularly in the flesh tones. As a result of this, light-colored diagonal lines are now faintly apparent across the man’s face, where the paint has been abraded at the ridges of the priming brushstrokes. The sitter’s hands have been disproportionately abraded and now appear rather flat.

Sophie Scully 2022

[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, report dated May 12, 1997. The report can be found in the files of the Department of Paintings Conservation. “The youngest heartwood ring was formed out in the year 1412. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1421, more plausible is a felling date between 1425..1427….1431+x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1423 upwards. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and 2 years for seasoning, as probably usual in the 14th/15th century, a creation is plausible from 1429 upwards.”
[2] Infrared reflectography was acquired with an OSIRIS InGaAs near-infrared camera fitted with a 6-element, 150mm focal length f/5.6–f/45 lens; 900-1700nm spectral response, May 2022, by Evan Read.

Ivo Francis Walter Bligh, 8th Earl of Darnley, Cobham Hall, Kent (until 1925; sale, Christie's, London, May 1, 1925, no. 49, as "A Man in the Attitude of Prayer," by Memling, for £1,575 to Colnaghi); [Colnaghi, London, 1925–at least 1926; sold to Harkness]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward S. Harkness, New York (1927–his d. 1940); Mrs. Edward S. (Mary Stillman) Harkness, New York (1940–d. 1950)

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art," September 22, 1998–February 21, 1999, no. 20.

Frankfurt. Städel Museum. "Der Meister von Flémalle und Rogier van der Weyden," November 21, 2008–February 22, 2009, no. 19.

Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. "Der Meister von Flémalle und Rogier van der Weyden," March 20–June 21, 2009, no. 19.

Georges Hulin de Loo. Letter. n.d., believes it to be a very early portrait by Rogier van der Weyden, when still much under the influence of his master, Robert Campin.

Max J. Friedländer. Letter. December 17, 1926, agrees with Hulin de Loo [see Ref. n.d.] that this is by Rogier, painted about 1440, when Rogier and the Master of Flémalle (Campin) stood in very close relation to each other; notes that "the portrait [n.b., field capacity inadequate for entire text].

G. Hulin de Loo. "Robert Campin or Rogier van der Weyden? Some Portraits Painted Between 1432 and 1444." Burlington Magazine 49 (1926), pp. 268, 273–74, ill. opp. p. 268, attributes it to Rogier.

Jules Destrée. Roger de la Pasture—van der Weyden. Paris, 1930, vol. 1, p. 180; vol. 2, pl. 128, in Colnaghi collection, London; tentatively ascribes it to Rogier.

Emile Renders. La Solution du problème Van der Weyden-Flémalle-Campin. Bruges, 1931, vol. 2, p. 80, pl. 51D (detail), in Colnachi [sic] collection, London; attributes it to Flémalle and compares it to a portrait of a man in the National Gallery, London [see Notes], which he attributes to Rogier.

Emile Renders and F. Lyna. "Le Maître de Flémalle, Robert Campin, et la prétendue école de Tournai." Gazette des beaux-arts, 6th ser., 6 (1931), pp. 289–97.

Charles de Tolnay. Le Maître de Flémalle et les frères van Eyck. Brussels, 1939, p. 49 n. 58, p. 58, no. 11, fig. 25, with Colnaghi, London; calls it an authentic work by Campin, and notes that it appears to be a type of donor portrait similar to that of Judocus Vyd by Jan van Eyck.

Hermann Beenken. Rogier van der Weyden. Munich, 1951, pp. 70, 142, pl. 35, as Stifterbildnis, dated about 1435–45, present whereabouts unknown; attributes it to Rogier, calling it the only donor portrait seeming to belong to his earlier period.

Erwin Panofsky. Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character. Cambridge, Mass., 1953, vol. 1, pp. 292, 419 n. 2 (to p. 154), p. 477 n. 4 (to p. 292), p. 479 n. 14 (to p. 294); vol. 2, pl. 221, fig. 361, attributes it to Rogier van der Weyden, noting that it is often ascribed to the Master of Flémalle, and believes it to be cut from a larger composition, as it "gives an uncomfortably crowded, fragmentary impression".

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 16.

Julius S. Held. "Erwin Panofsky, 'Early Netherlandish Painting, Its Origin[s] and Character'." Art Bulletin 37 (September 1955), p. 228, doubts that this is a work by Campin.

Colin Tobias Eisler. "New England Museums." New England Museums [Les primitifs flamands, I: Corpus de la peinture des anciens pays-bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle, vol. 4]. Brussels, 1961, p. 69, describes this portrait as of uncertain authorship, showing Flémallesque influence.

Colin Eisler. "Erik Larsen, Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York, 1960." Art Bulletin 46 (March 1964), p. 101, finds that "it suggests more an essay in the Campinesque manner by a later master than a work by Campin himself or the early Roger [sic]".

Mojmír S. Frinta. The Genius of Robert Campin. The Hague, 1966, p. 78, sees in this portrait an affinity—in the handling of the eyelids, wrinkles, and ear and in the thin application of paint—with a fragment of the head of Saint Joseph (Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon), noting that the latter in its style and the physiognomy has been associated with Campin's art [the Gulbenkian picture is now (2002) generally ascribed to Rogier van der Weyden].

J.-K. Huysmans. Trois primitifs: les Grünewald du musée de Colmar, le Maître de Flémalle et la Florentine du musée de Francfort-sur-le-Main. reprint with added notes [first ed. 1905]. Paris, 1967, p. 124, no. 16, ill., as by the Maître de Flémalle.

Josua Bruyn. Letter to John Walsh. October 3, 1973, observes that it "deserves an attribution to Rogier van der Weyden, and not to Campin".

Josua Bruyn. "The Literature of Art: A New Monograph on Rogier [Review of Martin Davies, Rogier van der Weyden . . ., 1972]." Burlington Magazine 116 (September 1974), p. 541, in a review of Martin Davies, Rogier van der Weyden, 1972, notes that for no stated reason this portrait was omitted from the list of works associated with Rogier.

Peter Klein. Letter to Maryan Ainsworth. May 15, 1991, notes that the wood of this panel originates from the Baltic/Polish region; based on an "earliest felling date" for the tree of 1421 suggests a possible date of creation for the painting of 1437 upward.

Otto Pächt. Van Eyck and the Founders of Early Netherlandish Painting. Ed. Maria Schmidt-Dengler. London, 1994, p. 77 [German ed. 1989].

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 244, ill.

Lorne Campbell. "Campin's Portraits." Robert Campin: New Directions in Scholarship. Ed. Susan Foister and Susie Nash. [Turnhout, Belgium], 1996, p. 127, fig. 5, believes the portrait to be by Campin himself, noting that it seems to be part of a half-length diptych, and that comparison with a copy in the Pinacoteca, Brescia [see Notes] suggests that this picture has not been substantially cut down.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. Letter to Felix Thürlemann. July 2, 1996, states that the hands are not a later addition, but are painted directly on the ground, with a reserve area in the costume having been left for them; notes that the underdrawing is a "tentative brush or pen contour drawing, having no relationship whatsoever to any of the underdrawing types known in paintings in the Flémalle/Campin group"; adds further that "the x-radiograph shows the broad brushstrokes of an imprimatura and a relatively thin build-up of lead-white for the flesh tones" not consistent with what is known from examination of other Campin group paintings; guesses that the picture is a copy from the mid-sixteenth century or later.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. Letter to Felix Thürlemann. April 2, 1997, following recent conservation and removal of disfiguring varnish, notes that this picture "appears to have the layering structure and general characteristics of a work of the fifteenth century, though not of the specific handling of Robert Campin so far as it is known".

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "A Meeting of Sacred and Secular Worlds." From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth and Keith Christiansen. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1998, pp. 146–47, no. 20, ill. (color), comments on the stylistic influence of both Campin and Rogier and calls it the work of a highly accomplished artist in the workshop of Campin while Rogier was an infuential assistant there, or in about 1430–35; notes that this dating is supported by the style of the costume and by the panel's dendrochronology; states that a later copy on copper, of similar size, is in the Pinacoteca Civico Tosio-Martinengo, Brescia.

Felix Thürlemann. Robert Campin: A Monographic Study with Critical Catalogue. Munich, 2002, pp. 327–28, no. III.G.1, ill., lists it among the works of "Students of Robert Campin" and dates it about 1430.

Jochen Sander in The Master of Flémalle and Rogier van der Weyden. Ed. Stephan Kemperdick and Jochen Sander. Exh. cat., Städel Museum, Frankfurt. Ostfildern, 2009, pp. 272, 275, 370, no. 19, ill. p. 276 (color) [German ed., "Der Meister von Flémalle und Rogier van der Weyden," Ostfildern, 2008], attributes it to the "Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden (?)" in the second half of the 1430s and finds it remarkably close to the Portrait of a Man in the Borromeo Collection, Isola Bella (cat. no. 18), which he also tentatively ascribes to Rogier's shop.

Peter Klein. "Dendrochronological Analysis of Panel Paintings Belonging to the Master of Flémalle and Rogier van der Weyden Groups." The Master of Flémalle and Rogier van der Weyden. Ed. Stephan Kemperdick and Jochen Sander. Exh. cat., Städel Museum, Frankfurt. Ostfildern, 2009, p. 163 [German ed., "Der Meister von Flémalle und Rogier van der Weyden," Ostfildern, 2008], based on his dendrochronological analysis of the panel suggests 1429/1437 as the probable date of painting.