Anthony van Dyck DPG90
DPG90 – Madonna and Child
c. 1627; canvas, 153.7 x 116.5 cm, including an addition at the top, together c. 30 x 116.5 cm
?Imported into France by Edmé-François Gersaint before 1750; ?Jean de Jullienne (1686–1766), Paris, not in his posthumous sale (Rémy and Julliot, Paris, 30 March 1767; Lugt 1603);1 presumably by inheritance to Mme de Jullienne: her posthumous sale, Le Brun, Paris, 5ff Nov. 1778 (Lugt 2906), lot 10; unknown transaction, 1,200 livres;2 not with Noel Desenfans, London (sales, London, 1786);3 J.-B.-P. Le Brun sale, Paris, Le Brun [sic as Le Brun is both the seller and the auctioneer] 20 April 1791 (Lugt 4705), lot 90, withdrawn;4 Noel Desenfans, London, ?1794–1807; ?Desenfans sale, 16 June 1794 (Lugt 5226), lot 451 (‘Vandyke – Madona [sic] and Child’ on canvas); Desenfans sale, Skinner and Dyke, 26 Feb. 1795 (Lugt 5281), lot 96 (‘Van Dyck – The Madona [sic] and Infant Christ’); not Trumbull sale, London, 18 Feb. 1797 (from the collections of the Duke d’Abaie and M. Donjoux, £71 8s);5 Insurance 1804, no. 111 (‘Vandyke – Virgin and Infant Saviour’; £800); Bourgeois Bequest, 1811; Britton 1813, p. 22, no. 213 (‘Drawing Room / no. 1; Virgin & child – half length of the former in drapery C[anvas] Vandyck’; 6'3"; 5' [with a curved top]).
Ottley 1818, iii, class iii (Schools of Germany, Flanders, Holland, etc.), p. 73, under no. 14;6 Cat. 1817, p. 8, no. 114 (‘SECOND ROOM – West Side; Madonna and Infant Saviour; Vandyke’); Haydon 1817, p. 380, no. 114;7 Cat. 1820, p. 8, no. 114; Patmore 1824a, pp. 193–4, no. 118;8 Patmore 1824b, pp. 30–31, no. 118;9 Hazlitt 1824, p. 34;10 Smith 1829–42, iii (1831), pp. 79–80, no. 263;11 Cat. 1831–3, p. 8, no. 135;12 Passavant 1836/1978, i, p. 63;13 Penny Magazine 1841b (with wood engraving by Jackson; Related works, no. 3e);14 Jameson 1842, ii, p. 464, no. 135;15 Clarke 1842, no. 135;16 Hazlitt 1843, p. 27 (see Hazlitt 1824); Denning 1858, no. 135;17 Denning 1859, no. 135;18 Sparkes 1876, p. 188, no. 135; Richter & Sparkes 1880, p. 52, no. 135;19 Guiffrey 1882, p. 244, not under no. 33 (Related works, no. 2b; now Baltimore); Bode 1889, p. 40 (original); Richter & Sparkes 1892, p. 23, no. 90; Cust 1900, p. 238, no. 16D (Repetition of the Bridgewater House version); Richter & Sparkes 1905, p. 23, no. 90; Schaeffer 1909, pp. 71 (fig. left), 498; Cook 1914, pp. 53–4, no. 90;20 Cook 1926, p. 51; Whitley 1928a, p. 253; Glück 1931, pp. 234 (fig.), 544 (durchaus eigenhändig (entirely by Van Dyck)); Van Puyvelde 1942, pp. 118 (‘only a copy of the Baltimore picture, made by another hand’);21 Cat. 1953, p. 40, no. 90; Paintings 1954, pp. 28 [, 60]; Hoogewerff 1957– 9, pp. 181– 2, fig. 6 (after 1627; ‘terza versione’, third version);22 Vey 1956, pp. 82 (original?), 84 (fig. 13); Vey 1962, p. 203, no. 136 (drawing for the Child); Paintings 1972, pp. 28, 50a [, 62]; De Schryver & Van de Velde 1972, pp. 74–5, under no. 34 (Related works, no. 2i); Murray 1980a, p. 53, no. 90; Murray 1980b, p. 13; Larsen 1980a, ii, pp. 103–4, no. 708; Larsen 1980b, pp. 146–7, no. 625; Brown 1982, pp. 122–3 (pl. 117); Larsen 1988, i, pp. 260–66 (fig. 238), 397 (note 406), ii, p. 264, no. 647 (c. 1630–32), 456–8, nos A 146/1–10 (copies after DPG90); Brown, Haverkamp-Begemann & Müller-Hofstede 1990, p. 149, under no. 25 (Related works, no. 2h); Díaz Padrón & Royo-Villanova 1992, p. 236; Edwards 1996, p. 244; Beresford 1998, p. 97; Depauw & Luijten 1999, p. 274 (fig. 2), under no. 38 (Related works, nos 3a.I–III), 279 (note 3); Peacock 2000a; Meij & De Haan 2001, p. 238 (fig. 2); Healy 2001a, pp. 104–5 (fig. 15), 112 (note 60: ‘a general consensus that the versions in Cambridge and Dulwich are the best’); Vey 2004, p. 254–5, no. III.12 (variant of the Baltimore painting; probably entirely autograph); Settis 2009, pp. 21–3 (fig. 12), 38 (note 42); Elsig 2009, p. 111, under no. 50; Vogtherr 2011, p. 18 (fig. 5); Vogtherr & Tonkovich 2011, p. 65 (fig.); Huidobro & Boega Vega 2015, p. 112 under no. 40 (Related works, no. 3a.III); Jonker & Bergvelt 2016, pp. 86–8, 91; RKD, no. 233943: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/233943 (Oct. 2, 2018).
London 1974 (C. Brown), pp. [2, 8].
Medium grade plain-weave linen canvas. The original canvas consists of two pieces of fabric, joined horizontally across the centre. There is a later addition of approximately 30 cm at the top (possibly by Bourgeois) to make it a pendant for DPG81 (Studio of Van Dyck). A thick, pale chalk ground has been streakily applied with a palette knife. There is a grey imprimatura above this. There are notable pentimenti around the child’s left foot and right arm (proper), and to the left of the Virgin’s head, and her proper left hand. Interestingly there is no ultramarine in this painting: the blue of the Virgin’s cloak is composed primarily of lead white and indigo, with some smalt. Glue-paste lined onto linen canvas; original tacking margins are absent. Due to the painting’s past problems with flaking, it has undergone several previous restoration treatments (not all of which have been recorded); consequently much of the paint is thin and abraded, for example in the background, shadows and plinth. Drapery passages containing smalt have discoloured over time, altering the balance of tones. Previous recorded treatment: 1864, treated, J. C. Robinson; c. 1950, cleaned and restored, Dr Hell; 2005, relined, cleaned and restored, S. Plender.
1a) Anthony van Dyck after Titian, Virgin and Child with St Catherine, p. 11 recto in the Italian Sketchbook, black chalk, traced over in pen and black ink by a later hand, 199 x 153 mm (sight measurement). BM, London, 1957,1214.207.11 .23
1b) Preparatory drawing, Head of the Virgin Mary, c. 1622–7, black and red chalk on white paper, 195 x 143 mm. BM, London, 1847,0326.14 .24
1c) Preparatory drawing, Standing Christ Child, black chalk with white highlights on white paper, 203 x 111 mm. BvB, Rotterdam, MB 5025.25
1d) (After) Anthony van Dyck, Study of the Christ Child and the Hand of the Madonna, pen and brown ink, 187 x 139 mm. MMA, New York, 19220.127.116.11
2a) Autograph variant: panel, 154.5 x 108 cm. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, PD.48-1976 .27
2b) Autograph variant: canvas, 126.1 x 114.6 cm. Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, 37.234 (formerly Blenheim Palace, 8th Duke of Marlborough: his sale, Christie’s, 24 July 1886, lot 14 ).28
2c) Workshop copy?: canvas, 112 x 83 cm. Palazzo Bianco, Genoa.29
2d) Copy: canvas, Palazzo Spinola, Genoa.30
2e) Copy: canvas, 140 x 109 cm. Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum, Brunswick, 129.31
2f) Copy: present whereabouts unknown (Cremer collection, Dortmund, 1914).32
2g) The Christ Child, standing on white cloth, dark background, canvas, 41 x 28 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Fritz August von Kaulbach collection, Munich; Helbing sale, Munich, 29–30 Oct. 1929, lot 158, attr. to Jacopo Bassano).33
2h) Studio replica or early 17th-century copy: canvas, 145 x 105 cm. Musée des Beaux-Arts, Nancy.34
2i) Copy: canvas, 167 x 110.5 cm. Ghent City Museum (Bijloke site), Ghent, 519.4/5a.35
2j) Copy: canvas, 129.8 x 116 cm. Liechtenstein, The Princely Collections, Vaduz-Vienna, G. 67.36
2k) Copy (of the head of Jesus): canvas, 36 x 30 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Graf Harrach’sche Familiensammlung, Schloss Rohrau).37
2l) Copy: Giovannoni collection, Milan.38
2m) Copy: canvas, 135 x 110 cm. Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht, ABM S184.39
2n) Copy: canvas, 112.3 x 93.5 cm. Musée d’art et d’histoire de Genève, Geneva, CR 254.40
2o) Anthony van Dyck, The Virgin and Child with St John the Baptist, panel, 151.9 x 114.5 cm. Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, Munich, 622 .41
2p) After the print by Pontius (Related works, no. 3a.I-III) or other prints in which the genitals of the Child are covered.
2p.I) Copy: Museum, Châlons-en-Champagne.42
2p.II) Copy: Museo Civico d’Arte Antica, Turin, 0248/D.43
2p.III) Copy: canvas, 135 x 110 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Dorotheum, Vienna, 13 Oct. 2010, lot 411).44
2q) Anthony van Dyck, The Continence of Scipio, 1621, canvas, 183 x 232.5 cm. Christ Church Picture Gallery, Oxford, JBS 245.45
2r) Anthony van Dyck, Portrait of George Gage with two Attendants, c. 1622–3, canvas, 115 x 113.5 cm. NG, London, NG49.46
2s) Copy: Edward Fancourt, painted in the RA Schools, Dec. 1825. University College, Durham.47
3a) Engravings in both directions, Paulus Pontius after Anthony van Dyck.48
3a.I) Engraving, 293 x 217 mm, unfinished proof. BM, London, R,2.9 .49
3a.II) Engraving, 294 x 220 mm, third state, lettered in lower margin with production details and two columns with two lines of Latin each: Virgo tuum stringens Natum, cur lumina cælo/ Vertis an hoc quidquam pulchrius astra dabunt?/ Sed scio: quo vertit se a corpore longius, ipsam/Hoc proprius Natum cernere crede, Deum, Antonius van Dyck inuentor; Cum priuilegio and Paulus Pontius sculpsit. BM, London, R,2.10 . 50
3a.III) Engraving in reverse, fourth state, dedicated to Antonius Triest, Bishop of Ghent.51
3b) Engraving by Manuel Salvador Carmona after a painting by Anthony van Dyck in the Conte Vincii collection, Paris, 1757, 405 x 292 mm. Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum, Harvard, Gift of Belinda L. Randall from the collection of John Witt Randall, R3539.52
3c) Engraving published by Pieter Clouwert after Paulus Pontius after Anthony van Dyck, 272 x 220 mm, inscribed (with the four lines in Latin, as in 3.a.II) and P.Clouet. ex. RPK, RM, Amsterdam, RP-P-OB-33.213.53
3d) William Finden after Anthony van Dyck (Related works, no. 2a), The Virgin and Child seated in Front of a Column, the Virgin looking at the Heavens, etching and engraving, 1815, 416 x 322 mm, in Ottley 1818, iii, no. 14. BM, London, 1860,0211.557.54
3e) Copy: John Jackson, ‘Virgin and Child – Vandyke’, wood engraving, The Penny Magazine 1841b, p. 241.55
4a) Hieronymus Janssens, Visit to a collection of paintings, canvas, 60 x 77 cm. Private collection, Madrid.56
4b) Reproduced in the Jullienne album, c. 1756. Morgan Library, New York, no. 1966.8, p. 52, ‘2me Cabinet de Mr. Côté de la Cheminée 19’ .57
4c) Pieter Christoffel Wonder, Patrons and Lovers of Art, c. 1826–30, canvas, 160.7 x 208.4 cm. Private collection, Great Britain .58
Lent to the RA to be copied in 1816, 1817, 1818, 1843, 1850, 1853, 1855, 1862, 1863, 1882, 1885 and 1889.
In Italy Van Dyck studied many Madonnas, as can be seen in his Italian Sketchbook, formerly at Chatsworth and now in the British Museum. The compositions of Renaissance artists, especially of Titian, were a source of inspiration for him. According to us the composition closest to DPG90 is the one on p. 11 recto, after Titian, traced over by a later hand (Related works, no. 1a) .59 It is one of Titian’s early Madonnas, which often show the Christ Child standing and naked.60 In this drawing the Child is standing and looking away from his mother, as in DPG90. In the drawing he is placed on his mother’s lap, while in DPG90 he is placed beside his mother on her blue garments above a piece of Classical architecture; below him are a carved volute, and a face barely visible hidden under the blue folds of Mary’s garments; behind is the base of a stone column. With his right hand he clasps the cloth on his mother’s breast, while with his left hand he makes a sign of blessing. Mary looks heavenward to commune with the father of her son. With one hand she holds a piece of white cloth that has presumably been used to swaddle the infant.
It seems that an addition of c. 30 cm. was introduced at the top to make it a pendant for DPG81 (Studio of Van Dyck), or the other way round, as on p. 52 of the Jullienne Album of c. 1756 (Related works, no. 4b)  a painting (DPG90?) is shown with a curved top, while originally the painting was shown with a straight top, as in Pontius’ print (Related works, no. 3a.I-III) [6-7]. Both DPG90 and DPG81 were recorded with a curved top in Britton’s inventory of 1813. According to Sophie Plender the tops of the paintings on canvas were never curved. She suggests that this might refer to the shape of the framing at the top in the 18th century, with a curved slip frame.61
DPG90 has been variously assessed. Van Puyvelde (1942) considered it to be a ‘copy by another hand’ after the painting in Baltimore (Related works, no. 2b) . Burckhard saw it after cleaning in 1957 and thought it to be a copy, reworked by Van Dyck. Vey (2004) however considered that DPG90 and the one in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Related works, no. 2a)  are the two most original versions. While Smith (1831) and Van Puyvelde (1942) regarded the Baltimore version as the most important, Vey (2004) reduced it to ‘another version’ of DPG90. The strong suggestion that Pontius’s print was made after DPG90 (see Related works, no. 3a) indicates that the painting now in Dulwich was regarded by Pontius (and Van Dyck) as the most important version. The Cambridge painting differs from DPG90 principally in the angle of the Virgin’s head, but there are other differences too: the face of the Virgin is less idealized and more ‘Flemish’; she wears a brooch at her neck in the shape of a cherub; the white cloth around the Christ Child is drawn back further, and he does not grasp his mother's dress with his left hand, he merely touches it; the sky in the background is less distinct. Moreover in Cambridge Mary’s hair is dark and covered with a head cloth, whereas in Dulwich her hair is blonde and much more visible (the head cloth rests on her shoulders). The figure of the Christ Child is replicated in Van Dyck’s Virgin and Child with St John the Baptist in Munich (Related works, no. 2o) , where the features of the Virgin are similar to those in the Cambridge painting. The classical ‘Italian’ features of the Virgin in the Cambridge and Munich paintings, her emotive gaze, and the obvious stylistic influence of Titian and Guido Reni (and Raphael) would suggest that they were painted after Van Dyck’s visit to Italy. Glück (1931) proposed that DPG90, on the other hand, was painted earlier.
In all three paintings the Christ Child stands on a volute, which along with the plinth and column in the background alludes to his birth in the Classical era, and which was also a common symbol of fortitude. John Peacock (2000a) noted that below the volute in the Dulwich painting a face in profile can be made out, which slightly resembles a detail in another painting by Van Dyck, The Continence of Scipio in Oxford (Related works, no. 2q): in the foreground there is an antique architectural fragment with volutes and two heads of gorgons, which still exists (Museum of London).62 In the 1620s Van Dyck often featured similar architectural fragments, as in the Portrait of George Gage with two Attendants in the National Gallery (Related works, no. 2r), where the fragment is probably an allusion to Gage’s collection.63
Peacock argues a contrast between the gaze of what he sees as Medusa (who is one of the three gorgons) in DPG90 and that of the Virgin: the stare of Medusa, who petrified anyone who looked her in the face, ‘reduces spirit to earthbound matter’, which is, of course, the opposite of the Virgin’s gaze and the experience of the devotional viewer.64 However the head is not very prominent in the Van Dyck paintings of the Virgin and Child, and it does not look like Medusa: there is not the traditional hair made up of snakes, indeed no hair at all is visible.65 Only if you knew the antique fragment with the heads of the gorgons, or Van Dyck’s painting of the Continence of Scipio, could you know that the face hidden in DPG90 was originally a gorgon’s head, which could have been meant as Medusa (Related works, no. 3a.I–III) [6-7]. The inscription does not refer to any contrast between Christian and pagan gazes.66
There is another difference between the first proof of Pontius’s print and the later states, not noticed by Peacock and other scholars: in the first state the Christ Child’s genitals are exposed (as they are in DPG90), seemingly as in Italian Renaissance tradition.67 This seems to be an important difference: in almost all the painted versions by Van Dyck himself the genitals are visible, while in most of the prints they are covered, except for the print by William Finden, which was made after the painting now in Cambridge (Related works, no. 3d). The painted copies with covered genitals were probably made after the prints. It is not clear why Pontius changed this (or why Van Dyck made Pontius change this, if he did). Luijten suggests that it could have been done because of the dedication to Antonius Triest, Bishop of Ghent.68
The composition of the Madonna and Child was very popular, as can be seen in the many variants and painted copies (Related works, nos 2a–2n, 2p.I–III, 2s). Many reproductive prints were also made (Related works, nos 3a.I–III, 3b–3e).69 In the 17th century Hieronymus Janssens depicted it as part of an Antwerp collection of paintings (Related works, no. 4a). And in Pieter Christoffel Wonder’s Patrons and Lovers of Art (c. 1826–30; Related works, no. 4c) , which is a kind of prefiguration of how the National Gallery was supposed to develop, the version now in Cambridge is depicted above a Madonna in a roundel by Raphael, and as a pendant of Rubens’s Chapeau de Paille.70 Although a version of this Van Dyck composition never made it into the national collection, DPG90 and its variants were at the time considered to be a canonic image which should have been included in the National Gallery.71
The early provenance of DPG90 is difficult to establish given the plethora of paintings of the Virgin and Child attributed to Van Dyck in 18th- and 19th-century sale catalogues. It cannot be the Van Dyck Madonna and Child recorded in Desenfans’ sales in 1786, since that was smaller. It first appears in Desenfans’ 1804 Insurance list, which valued DPG90 at £800.72 It seems likely, however, that DPG90 is the painting that Le Brun withdrew from sale in 1791, as size, support and valuation would all seem to match: if that is the case, then DPG90 was probably one of the works obtained by Desenfans for Stanislaus II Augustus, King of Poland, a notable collector of works by Van Dyck, for whom Desenfans started to collect in 1790.
The painting was lent to the Royal Academy many times to be copied by its pupils.
Anthony van Dyck
The Virgin and Child, ca 1627
canvas, oil paint 153,7 x 116,5 cm
Dulwich (London), Dulwich Picture Gallery, inv./cat.nr. DPG90
Anthony van Dyck after Tiziano
Virgin and Child with St Catherine, after Titian, 1621-1627
paper, black chalk, pen in black ink 199 x 153 mm
London (England), British Museum, inv./cat.nr. 1957,1214.207.11
Anthony van Dyck
Virgin, c. 1622-1627
paper, black and red chalk 195 x 143 mm
London (England), British Museum, inv./cat.nr. 1847,0326.14
Anthony van Dyck
The Virgin and Child, 1628
panel, oil paint 154,5 x 108 cm
Cambridge (England), Fitzwilliam Museum, inv./cat.nr. PD.48-1976
Anthony van Dyck
Virgin and Child, c. 1630-1632
canvas, oil paint 126,1 x 114,6 cm
Baltimore (Maryland), Walters Art Gallery, inv./cat.nr. 37.234
Anthony van Dyck
The Virgin and Child with the infant John the Baptist, 1627-1628
panel, oil paint 151,9 x 114,5 cm
Munich, Alte Pinakothek, inv./cat.nr. 622
Paulus Pontius (I) after Anthony van Dyck
Virgin and Child, 1627-1630
paper, drypoint, etching, engraving 293 x 217 mm
London (England), British Museum, inv./cat.nr. R,2.9
Paulus Pontius (I) after Anthony van Dyck
Virgin and Child, 1627-1630
paper, drypoint, etching, engraving, 3rd state 292 x 220 mm
London (England), British Museum, inv./cat.nr. R,2.10
Wall in 2d Cabinet de Mr. [Jullienne]; Side of the Chimney, c. 1756
paper, aquarel paint (watercolor) 196 x 260 mm
New York City, The Morgan Library & Museum, inv./cat.nr. 1966-8, p. 52
Pieter Christoffel Wonder
Patrons and lovers of art, c. 1826-1830
canvas, oil paint 134 x 190 cm
1 A version of this painting was in the collection of Jullienne: see Jullienne album, Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, no. 1966.8, p. 52 (Related works, no. 4b) .
2 GPID (19 Jan. 2013): Wandick – La Vierge vue à mi-corps, grandeur de nature, tenant l’Enfant Jésus sur ses genoux le regard tourné vers le ciel, vêtue d’une tunique rouge & d’une draperie bleue. Ce superbe morceau qui a fait l’ornement du Cabinet de M. de Jullienne, a laissé des doutes que nous n’entreprendons pas d’éclaircir; néanmoins on y remarque une belle couleur, une touche ferme & hardie; enfin toute les parties qui constituent un beau tableau s’y trouvent réunies; sur toile, hauteur 5 pieds 2 pouces, largeur 3 pieds 3 pouces (Van Dyck – The Virgin seen half-length, life-size, holding the Child Jesus on her lap looking towards heaven, dressed in a red tunic & blue drapery. This beautiful piece that adorned M. de Jullienne’s Cabinet has left doubts that we will not attempt to clarify; nevertheless, in it we note beautiful colour, a bold & firm touch; in short, all the parts that make up a beautiful painting come together here; on canvas, h. 5 feet 2 inches, w. 3 feet 3 inches [French]).
3 It is not plausible that DPG90 was with Desenfans in 1786, went to Le Brun in Paris and then returned to Desenfans again, as is stated in Vey 2004, p. 255, no. III.12.
4 GPID (19 Jan. 2013): Antoine Vandick – La Vierge soutenant l’enfant Jésus; elle est vue debout, de grandeur naturelle et jusqu’aux genoux, le regard tourné vers le ciel, vêtue d’une tunique rouge et d’une draperie bleue: l’enfant Jésus est debout et tout nu, le regard tourné vers le spectateur; il s’appuie, de la main droite, sur la poitrine de la Vierge. Dans le fond, à droite, l’on voit le piedestal et la base d’une colonne. Ce précieux tableau, qui a fait l’ornement du cabinet de M. de Julienne [sic], fut apporté en France par Gersan [= Gersaint], l’un des plus grands connoisseurs qui aient existé, et qui le vendit 24,000 liv. Comme nous connoissons deux des autres tableaux de ce même sujet, nous nous imposons le silence que nous leur devons, en assurant que celui-ci est un des plus fins et des plus beaux ouvrages d’Antoine Vandick. Hauteur, 56 pouces; largeur, 39. T[oile] (Anthony van Dyck – The Virgin holding the child Jesus; she is shown standing, life-size and down to her knees, looking towards heaven, dressed in a red tunic and blue drapery; the child Jesus is standing naked, looking towards the viewer; he rests his right hand on the Virgin's breast. In the background, to the right, is the plinth and lower part of a column. This valuable picture, which was the ornament of M. de Julienne's cabinet, was brought to France by Gersan [= Gersaint], one of the greatest connoisseurs who ever lived, and who sold it for 24,000 livres. Since we know two other paintings of the same subject, we will keep silence as is their due, and confirm that this is one of the finest and most beautiful works by Anthony van Dyck. On canvas, height 56 (French) inches; width 39.)
5 As stated in Buchanan (and repeated in Denning 1859 and Cook 1914). Buchanan 1824, i, p. 264, [Trumbull collection, Feb. 1797, Second day of the sale] no. 57: ‘Vandyke. – The Virgin and Child. One of the favourite compositions of this great master, and in fine preservation. From the collections of the Duke de L’Assaie and of M. Donjoux. Price £71-8-0.’ According to GPID (14 July 2013) this painting was still in the collection of Trumbull in 1812. Moreover its composition does not match DPG90 (Duc de l’Assaye; Vincent Donjeux, his sale, Paris, Jeluseau [?], 29ff Apr. 1793, lot 132: Antoine Vandick – La Vierge tenant l'enfant Jésus sur ses genoux; elle est à demi-penchée vers lui, la main droite posée sur la poitrine, et elle le soutient de la gauche par le haut des épaules. Ce tableau d’une couleur fine, a un mérite réel parmi les productions de ce maître. T., Haut. 40 p. larg. 30 (Anthony van Dyck – The Virgin holding the infant Jesus on her knees [not in DPG90]; she is leaning towards him, her right hand resting on his chest [on his belly in DPG90], and she supports him with her left hand at the top of his shoulders [below his arm in DPG90]. This picture, with fine colouring, has real merit among the productions of this master [‘lying naked on his mothers lap & extending its left hand to his mother’s face’, according to the annotation in the Courtauld Institute, see below. C[anvas], h. 40 inches [French], w. 30). Sold to J.-B.-P. Le Brun, 400 livres; John Trumbull, his sale, Coxe, London, 12 Jun. 1812, lot 5 (‘Sir Anthony Vandyke – The Madona [sic] and Infant Saviour. Size, including the frame, 4 feet 9 inches high, by 4 feet wide. A beautiful repetition of a well known and much admired composition of the Master; with which he was so delighted, that he painted it several times. It formerly hung in the Palais de l’Assaye, at Paris. The heads are admirably expressive of maternal affection and infantine playfulness; the drawing is correct; the colour an evidence of the near approach of Vandyke to the sober dignity of Titian; and the harmony of the ensemble perfect. In the execution it is an elegant example of that mellow style which unites precision with looseness; the decided touch of the pencil, with that vague softness, which, while it leaves no visible outline, particularly in the flesh, still preserves the forms correct and elegant: a beauty seldom found in the works of any other Master, and not always in such perfection even in those of Vandyke’). Bought in, £262.10; Stanley, London, 6 May 1824, lot 48 (‘Vandyck – The Virgin and Child [The Following Pictures Were Collected by John Trumbull, Esq. in the Year 1795, with the exception of the celebrated “Sortie from Gibraltar” which was painted by him to commemorate that glorious event]’), bt Horatio Rodd, £63.0; Charles Birch, London, his sale, Christie’s, 14 Jun. 1828, lot 29 (‘V. Dyck – The Virgin and Child; a favourite composition of this master, from the collection of the Duc de l’Assaie and of Mr. Donjou, bt Agnew, £43.1’. A copy of the catalogue in the Courtauld Institute is annotated: ‘lying naked on his mothers lap & extending its left hand to his mother's face’; given the note ‘lying naked’, this does not seem to be DPG90.
6 At the time the picture was in the Earl of Stafford’s collection (now Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum: Related works, no. 2a) : ‘Anthony van Dyck. Nat. 1599, ob. 1641. The Madonna and child. A duplicate of this beautiful picture will be found in the extensive collection formed by the late Mr. Desenfans, and recently bequeathed, by his friend Sir Francis Bourgeois, to Dulwich College. Both of them possess such excellence as to justify the opinion that they are alike the productions of Vandyck; who, following the example of his master Rubens, no doubt occasionally painted repetitions of favourite subjects, assisted, perhaps, in the accessorial parts, by his best scholars. It is painted on panel, and measures 4 feet 7 inches in height, by 3 feet 4 inches. Drawn by W. M. Craig. Engraved by Wm Finden.’
7 287 ‘Sir Anth. van Dyck. Virgin Mary and Infant Saviour. This capital and undoubted work, companion to No. 112 [= DPG81, Charity] , is one of the greatest ornaments of the Gallery, and of which we shall say no more, than that the Royal Academy selected it as one of its examplars for the students in the School of Colour this year, 1816.’
8 ‘Nos 106 [DPG81] and 118 [DPG90] are perhaps two of the very best pictures of Vandyck in the ideal style. The delineation of Nature – refined, but yet real nature – was his forte; but still he has painted a few ideal works that are exceedingly fine – and these must be ranked among the number. A Madonna and child, is the best. It has all the glow of Rubens, without his coarseness; or rather all the refinement of Guido, without his coldness. The upturned gaze of the mother is intense. She is feeding her mind from above, with high and holy thoughts. And the attitude and character of the child express the very nobility of Nature. It seems to have fed from the same fount with its divine mother, but through her medium – to have sucked in its mental as well as bodily life from her breast. There is a repetition of this picture at the Cleveland Gallery; but I think the one before us is the finer of the two.’
9 289Almost the same text as in the previous note.
10 ‘In this room is Rubens’s Samson and Delilah [168 [DPG127]], a coarse daub – at least it looks so between two pictures by Vandyke, Charity [124 [DPG81]], and a Madonna and Infant Christ [135 [DPG90]]. That painter probably never produced any thing more complete than these two compositions. They have the softness of air, the solidity of marble: the pencil appears to float and glide over the features of the face, the folds of the drapery, with easy volubility, but to mark every thing with a precision, a force, a grace indescribable. Truth seems to hold the pencil, and elegance to guide it. The attitudes are exquisite, and the expression all but divine. It is not like Raphael’s, it is true – but whose else was? Vandyke was born in Holland [sic], and lived most of his time in England!’
11 Under this number three versions are mentioned. The first is now in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore; the second is now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: ‘A Picture agreeing precisely with the above description, and indubitably the original, of superlative beauty, possessing the mellow richness and brilliancy of colour of Titian, with the most chaste and elegant design, and an expression in the countenance of the Virgin perfectly divine, is in the splendid collection of Lord Francis Leveson Gower, at Bridgewater House […] The third picture, being a repetition of the preceding, is in the Dulwich Gallery […] The above subject and composition is engraved by Pontius, Carmona, Finden, and Salvador. The latter took his print from a picture then in the collection of the Count Vincii, in 1757.’ There seems to be a mix-up here, since Carmona and Salvador are probably the same printmaker; see Related works, no. 3b.
12 ‘X’– ‘X Never beheld such expression as that beaming upwards from the Madonna’s eyes: & what colour harmony & finish.’
13 ‘Ant. Van Dyck. Virgin and Child, a most lovely and exquisitely coloured picture. A fine study for all young artists.’
14 ‘The more striking beauties of the performance, are the exquisite expression of the face of the Virgin, the mixed intellectuality and infantine sportiveness in the face of the Redeemer, the graceful disposition of the drapery, the excellent arrangement of colour, the management of the lights and darks, and the beautiful drawing of the extremities, that is, of the hands of the two figures and of the feet of the Saviour. The defects appear to be two, firstly, the affectation in the action of the figure of the Child, and secondly, the want of drawing in the neck of the Madonna. One fault, and the greatest admirers of the work must admit it to be so, disturbs the repose of the whole composition, for the strong action of one figure is inconsistent with the quiescence of the other; its flippancy of attitude injuriously contrasts with the sublime repose of the Madonna. This is a solecism in taste. The other defect has arisen from an inattention to academic accuracy. The neck of the Virgin, instead of forming a graceful undulation from the shoulder upwards, as it would in nature were the head thrown over in the manner here depicted, forms, in the first instance, too straight a line, and then too suddenly abruptly joins the line of the chin and the cheek.’
15 ‘This is an original repetition of a celebrated and beautiful subject, of which the finest example – the originalissimo – is in the Bridgewater collection; another is at Blenheim, and a fourth in the Dresden Gallery […] Engraved by P. Pontius, Carmona, Finden, and Salvador.’ As also is said by Smith, see note 11, and Related works, nos 3a–3d.
16 ‘The upturned gaze of the mother is intense. She is feeding her mind from above, with high and holy thoughts. And the attitude and character of the child express the very nobility of our nature. It seems to have fed from the same fount with its divine mother, but through her medium; to have sucked its mental as well as bodily life from her breast.’
17 ‘Vandyke executed “a Madonna with the Child” for Queen Henrietta Maria. Cf: Carpenter’s Vandyke. p: 39. “A most lovely and exquisitely coloured picture. A fine study for all young artists” Passavant. Vol: I. p: 63.
18 ‘The original was probably painted for Queen Henrietta Maria. See Carpenter’s Vandyke Notes p: 39. According to Smith, in his Catalogue Raisonné (Sm: iii. No. 263), this would be the one in the Bridgewater Collection which he characterizes as “undubitably the original, of superlative beauty, possessing the mellow richness and brilliancy of colour of Titian, with the most chaste and elegant design, and an expression in the countenance of the Virgin perfectly divine.” That may be also said with justice of our picture. A second, in the Dresden Gallery, was purchased by J. A. Friedel at Vienna in 1741 for that Collection. A third is at Blenheim in the Collection of the Duke of Marlborough. And this, the fourth, and not less deserving our admiration, was formerly in the Collections of the Duke d’Assaie and of M. Donjoux. It then came into the Collection of Mr Trumbull, & was bought at his sale in 1797 by a Mr Price for £71.8.0! In those days of the French Revolution, pictures were bought and sold for extraordinarily low prices. See Buchanan’s Memoirs. Vol: 1. p: 264.’
19 ‘Very animated in its composition; the head of the Madonna very expressive. This picture is a replica of the celebrated Madonna in the Bridgewater Gallery, but less brilliant in colour. Others are to be found at Blenheim and at Dresden.’
20 p. 54: ‘Replica of one in Bridgewater Gallery, but is less brilliant in colour. Other versions are in Blenheim and Dresden.’
21 Van Puyvelde is contradicting Glück, ‘who believes the “Virgin and Child” at Dulwich to be a good work by van Dyck himself. […] The entire presentation, the folds, the reflection are very similar – but they are too similar. There is not one note of personal accent and the execution reveals nothing of the nervosité of van Dyck.’
22 According to Hoogewerff there are three roughly similar paintings in Dulwich, the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, and the Liechtenstein-Galerie in Vienna.
23 RKD, no. 293204: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/293204 (Feb. 20, 2019). See also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1957-1214-207-11 (Aug. 2, 2020). According to the BM the drawing on the recto is closely related to an engraving after Titian published by Frans van den Wyngaerde (BM, London, 1874,0808.451, see https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1874-0808-451 (Aug. 2, 2020). However Van Dyck might have seen the original by Titian, which was possibly commissioned by Domenico Balbi, Genoa (?): see Valcanover 1965, i, p. 58, figs 53–4; until c. 1952 in the Balbi Palace, Genoa, but in 2013 at Fondazione Magnani-Rocca, Mamiano di Traversetolo (Parma): Titian, Madonna and Child, SS. Catherine and Dominic, and a Worshipper, canvas, 130 x 185 cm. See also Wethey 1969, i, p. 106, no. 61, figs 9, 11 (then coll. Prof. Luigi Magnani, La Guida, Reggio d’Emilia).
24 RKD, no. 293206: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/293206 (Feb. 20. 2019). See also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1847-0326-14 (Aug. 2, 2020); Vey 1962, i, p. 202, no. 135, ii, fig. 174. This drawing is related to the painting in Cambridge (Related works, no. 2a) . See also Depauw & Luijten 1999, p. 277 (fig. 4).
25 RKD, no. 293207: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/293207 (Feb. 20, 2019); Meij & De Haan 2001, pp. 238–9, no. 66; Vey 1962, no. 136. This drawing can be related to the painting in Cambridge, but also to the one in Munich (Related works, nos 2a and 2o) . See also Depauw & Luijten 1999, p. 277 (fig. 5).
26 https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/335451?searchField=ArtistCulture&sortBy=relevance&what=Drawings&ft=Dyck&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=17 (Nov. 14, 2018); on the verso is a poem, which was (partly) transcribed by Marten Jan Bok and Bas Dudok van Heel: email from Marten Jan Bok to Michiel Jonker and Stijn Alsteens, 27 March 2013. Transcription of a poem on the verso of a drawing by Peter Paul Rubens after (probably) a painting by Van Dyck, related to DPG90. Transcribed after a reproduction in the sale catalogue, Amsterdam (A. de Vries) 26/27 July 1928, p. 223, at the request of Michiel Jonker (email of 23 Jan. 2012):
27 RKD, no. 24457: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/244457 (Dec. 16, 2018). See also http://data.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/id/object/1352 (Nov. 14, 2018); Ellis, Roe & Smith 2006, p. 58, no. PD.48-1976; Vey 2004, p. 254, no. III.11.
28 RKD, no. 292748: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/292748 (Jan. 3, 2019). See also https://art.thewalters.org/detail/22581/virgin-and-child-37/ (Aug. 2, 2020); Vey 2004, p. 255, under no. III.12 (another version); Larsen 1988, ii, pp. 456–7, A 146/2 (fig.; copy after DPG90).
29 Hoogewerff 1957–9, p. 181, fig. 5 (replica of the second version).
30 Larsen 1988, ii, pp. 456–7, A 145/2 (fig; after Related works, no. 2a).
31 Klessmann 2003, pp. 32–3, no. 129; a mezzotint was made in 1803 by Carl Schröder, who made further prints reproducing works in the Brunswick collection; Larsen 1988, ii, p. 457, A 146/4 (no fig.).
32 Larsen 1988, ii, p. 457, A 146/5 (no fig.).
33 Vey 2004, p. 254, under no. III.11. Glück 1931, pp. 543–4, under p. 233 calls this an oil study; as the work seems not to have been photographed it is difficult to assess its attribution.
34 Brown, Haverkamp-Begemann & Müller-Hofstede 1990, pp. 148–9, no. 25; Larsen 1988, ii, p. 456, A145/1 (fig.; after Related works, no. 2a).
35 Vey 2004, p. 255 under no. III.12; De Schryver & Van de Velde 1972, pp. 74–5, no. 34.
36 Vey 2004, p. 255, under no. III.12; Larsen 1988, ii, p. 456, A 146/1 (fig.).
37 Vey 2004, p. 255, under no. III.12; Larsen 1988, ii, p. 246, no. 605 (fig.).
38 Larsen 1988, ii, p. 458, A 146/10 (fig.).
40 Elsig 2009, p. 111, no. 50 (S. Legrand).
42 Email from Christoph Vogtherr to Xavier Bray, 16 June 2012 (DPG90 file).
43 Meijer, Sluiter & Brizio 2011, pp. 228–9, no. 309.
45 RKD, no. 48884: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/48884 (Dec. 16, 2018). See also https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-continence-of-scipio-229224/view_as/grid/search/keyword:scipio/page/1 (Nov. 14, 2018); De Poorter 2004, pp. 135–6, no. I.157 (O. Millar); Shaw 1967, pp. 125–6, no. 245.
47 Letter from David Cross to Desmond Shawe-Taylor, 13 Dec. 2000 (DPG90 file).
48 Turner 2002, pp. 192–209, no. 547; Healy 2001a, p. 104: ‘The engraving, which is certainly closer to the Dulwich painting [than to the Cambridge version]’; Depauw & Luijten 1999, pp. 274–9, no. 38.
49 RKD, no. 292751: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/292751 (Jan. 3, 2019). See also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_R-2-9 (Aug. 2, 2020); Turner 2002, p. 192, no. 547, I.
50 RKD, no. 292753: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/292753 (Jan. 3, 2019). See also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_R-2-10 (Aug. 2, 2020). Translation (see Depauw & Luijten 1999, p. 278): ‘Holy lady, why do you direct your eyes to heaven, while you caress your son? Will the stars show you anything more beautiful than him? But I know that the more she looks away from his body, the closer she contemplates her son, who is God.’
51 Turner 2002, p. 192, no. 547,IV; for Bishop Antoon Triest, an important art collector and patron, see Depauw & Luijten 1999, pp. 209–13 (C. Depauw). In the dedication to Triest the emphasis is on his love of art (omnium ingenuarum atrium admiratori unico et Maecenati – exceptional admirer and protector of all fine arts). See also Huidobro & Boega Vega 2015, pp. 112–13, no. 40.
53 Turner 2002, p. 193, under no. 547, copy no. g; Depauw & Luijten 1999, p. 279, note 15.
54 https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1860-0211-557 (Aug. 2, 2020), see also note 11.
55 See note 57.
56 Díaz Padrón & Royo-Villanova 1992, pp. 234–7, no. 33.
58 RKD, no. 265511: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/265511 (Nov. 14, 2018); Bergvelt 2015; Brown 1981, p. 22, no. 42, where Wonder’s four preparatory oil sketches are also mentioned, now in the NPG, London (ibid., pp. 22–23, nos 43–46). See also Niemeijer 1965.
59 Before this other drawings were mentioned and illustrated for comparison, e.g. the drawing on p. 15 recto: see Depauw & Luijten 1999, p. 274. That is a better drawing than the one on p. 11 recto (which is traced over by a later hand), but not so close in composition.
60 As in Madonna with Child with SS. Anthony of Padua and Roch, c. 1508, canvas, 92 x 133 cm, Prado, Madrid (Valcanover 1965, i, p. 51, fig. 22), and The Gipsy Madonna, c. 1510, panel, 65.5 × 83.5 cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Valcanover 1965, i, pp. 54–6, fig. 43). Titian also depicted a standing naked Christ Child later: The Pesaro Altarpiece, 1519–26, canvas, 478 x 268 cm. Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari, Venice (Valcanover 1965, ii, p. 84, fig. 122–3).
61 Email from Sophie Plender to Ellinoor Bergvelt, 20 Feb. 2019 (DPG90 file).
62 Peacock 2000a, p. 36 (fig. 3). See also Peacock 2000b, p. 264 (fig. 38), and Harris 1973.
63 Roy 1999a, pp. 56–9.
64 Peacock 2000a, p. 35.
65 Peacock goes even further and interprets DPG90 as a ‘Santa Maria sopra Minerva’ (Holy Mary above the antique goddess of wisdom); and says that the Christ Child tramples the snakes (Medusa's hair) in the fragment, which was supposed to have come from a Temple of Pallas Athene or Minerva. Peacock 2000a, p. 36.
66 Peacock 2000a, p. 37 dismisses the inscriptions as perhaps being made after Van Dyck’s death.
67 G. Luijten (in Depauw & Luijten 1999, pp. 278–9) was the first to discern this. Veldman & De Hoop Scheffer 1976 mention two prints by Pontius: p. 153, no. 20, with the child standing on the left side on her lap (with genitals uncovered; this is the one with the 4th state dedicated to Triest), and p. 154, no. 21, with the child standing on the right side of her lap with genitals covered. This difference is not mentioned here. For the Italian Renaissance tradition of showing Christ’s sexuality see Steinberg 1983.
68 G. Luijten in Depauw & Luijten 1999, pp. 278–9. See also Steinberg 1983. According to Peacock 2000a however this dedication was made later.
69 More versions are mentioned and illustrated in Turner 2002, pp. 192–209, no. 547.
70 Many of the works in Wonder’s picture ended up in the National Gallery, but not Van Dyck’s Madonna: Rubens’s Chapeau de Paille entered the National Gallery as part of the collection of Sir Robert Peel in 1871 (NG852); Wonder shows it hanging above a painting by Bernardino Luini (NG18) that was to enter the National Gallery in 1831 as part of the bequest of William Holwell Carr. Both Sir Robert Peel and William Holwell Carr are depicted as ‘Painters and Lovers of Art’ in the Wonder painting. This picture featured in an exhibition about the Utrecht painter Pieter Christoffel Wonder held in the Utrecht Centraal Museum in 2015–16: see Bergvelt 2015, where most of the pictures depicted by Wonder are identified. Wonder made a preparatory drawing (Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam, RP-T-1958-32) after Van Dyck’s Madonna at the time in the collection of the Marquis of Stafford (who is also depicted in the picture by Wonder), now in Cambridge.
71 At least that is what John Murray thought, who commissioned the painting by Wonder. The Raphael roundel did not enter the National Gallery either.
72 Desenfans private sale, 8ff Apr. 1786 (Lugt 4022), lot 187 (‘Vandyck – Madona and child’); Desenfans private sale, London, 8ff Jun. 1786 (Lugt 4059A), lot 187 (‘Vandyck – Madona [sic] and child’) (both as 53 x 44 in.); Christie’s, 13 July 1786 (Lugt 4071), lot 62 (‘Van Dyck – A madona [sic] and child’), bt ‘Debrun’ [J.-B.-P. Le Brun], £8.18. It may be that the picture recorded in 1786 passed from Lebrun to Charles-Alexandre Calonne, since such a work, with an identical valuation, is recorded in the 1795 mortgage sale of Calonne’s collection (Skinner and Dyke, 25 Mar. 1795 [Lugt 5226], lot 58 [‘Van Dyck – The Madona [sic] and Child’]. Unknown transaction, £8.18).