The Madonna with Canon van der Paele

Jan van Eyck

Contemporary-Art.org
Keywords: MadonnaCanonPaele

Work Overview

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele (The Madonna with Canon van der Paele)
Jan van Eyck
1436
Oil on wood
122 x 157 cm
Groeninge Museum, Bruges


The Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele is a large oil-on-oak panel painting completed around 1434–36 by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. It shows the painting's donor, Joris van der Paele, within an apparition of saints. The Virgin Mary is enthroned at the centre of the semicircular space, which most likely represents a church interior, with the Christ Child on her lap. St. Donatian stands to her right, Saint George—the donor's name saint—to her left. The panel was commissioned by van der Paele as an altarpiece. He was then a wealthy clergyman from Bruges, but elderly and gravely ill, and intended the work as his memorial.


The saints are identifiable from Latin inscriptions lining the borders of the imitation bronze frame, which is original. Van der Paele is identifiable from historical records. He is dressed in the finery of a medieval canon, including white surplice, as he piously reads from a book of hours. He is presented to Mary by Saint George, his name saint, who holds aloft his metal helmet in respect. Saint Donatian, dressed in brightly coloured vestments, stands to the left. The panel is noted for the finery of clothing, including exquisite representations of furs, silks and brocades, and the elaborate and detailed religious iconography. The Virgin's throne is decorated with carved representations of Adam and Eve, prefigurations of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, and scenes from the Old Testament. The painting is lined with a series of inscriptions which comment on the saints, and include van Eyck's signature.


The van der Paele panel is widely considered one of van Eyck's most fully realised and ambitious works, and has been described as a "masterpiece of masterpieces".


oris van der Paele is identifiable both from his resemblance and by the paternal and maternal (the Carlans') coat of arms at the corners of each frame.[2] He was born in Bruges around 1370, and spent his early career as a papal scribe in Rome before returning to his native city in 1425 as a wealthy man.[3] He was appointed to a canonry of St. Donatian's collegiate church, a position which gave him income from the various parishes under his remit.[4]


An illness around 1431[5] left van der Paele unable to fulfil the functions of his office, and led him to reflect upon his position as canon and on his mortality. In response he endowed a chaplaincy to the church and commissioned this work from van Eyck. The artist was at the height of his fame and in high demand, and this, along with the large size of the panel, meant that the commission took a lot longer to complete than was initially envisioned; two completion dates can be found on the frame, implying that the earlier date was aspirational and missed.[6]


In return for the bequest, the church granted the canon a requiem mass, a daily mass and three votive masses a week, meant to intercede with the divine on his behalf. A second chaplaincy in 1443[7] centred on prayers for his family,[8] and guaranteed that after his death, the requiem mass would end with readings of the Miserere mei and De profundis.


Van der Paele may have kept the panel in his private chambers or as a church altar.[10] He donated it to the church either in 1436 or on his death in 1443;[8] it remained there until the church was demolished in 1779. Most likely the work was situated in the nave as an accompaniment to an altar for Saints Peter and Paul and used for memorial masses for van der Paele and his family. It was installed on the main altar after the Iconoclasm of 1566.[11]


An inscription on the lower imitation frame refers to der Paele's benefaction: "Joris van der Paele, canon of this church, had this work made by painter Jan van Eyck. And he founded two chaplaincies here in the choir of the Lord. 1434. He only completed it in 1436, however."


The Virgin and Child is set in a rounded church with side ambulatories,[13] with Mary occupying the area where the altarpiece would usually be positioned.[8] The panel has an overall sculptural look; the throne, windows, arches and hanging canvases borrow from the conventions of Romanesque architecture.[14] After the "Adoration of the Mystic Lamb" panel of the Ghent Altarpiece, it is van Eyck's second largest extant painting, and the only one in a horizontal framing. The Virgin and Child is characterised by its innovative use of illusionism and complex spatial composition. It is in its original oak frame,[15] which contains several Latin inscriptions, including van Eyck's signature, the date of completion, the donor's name, and texts related to St. George and St. Donatian.[16][8] The upper border contains phrases from the Book of Wisdom, comparing Mary to an "unspotted mirror".[11]


The figures, the minutely detailed clothes, and the architecture of the room and windows are depicted with a high degree of realism. Van Eyck's mastery at handling oil can be seen in the differing breadths of brush strokes. The precision of the detail achieved is especially noticeable in the rendering of threads of St. Donatian's blue and golden embroidered cope and mitre, in the weave of the oriental carpet, and in the stubble and veins on van der Paele's aging face.


Virgin and Child is rich with seamlessly woven iconography.[42] Broadly, the elements on the left, including the imitation carvings, reference Christ's death, and those on the right his Resurrection.[43][11] The painting contains examples of van Eyck's habit of presenting the viewer with what art historian Craig Harbison describes as "a transfigured view of visible reality", via the placement of small, unobtrusive, details which "illustrated not earthly existence but what [van Eyck] considered supernatural truth. They would have been easy to discern for a medieval viewer".[44]


The figures are in a church, surrounded by an arcade of semi-circular arches, which suggests it might be a choir.[45] The scene seems to be illuminated from invisible windows, with light spilling from the left foreground and the leaded windows behind the Virgin's throne.[46] Mary's throne is placed where the altar would normally be positioned.[30] The Child's white cloth is draped over Mary's red robe, which may represent veiled host during celebration of the Eucharist; a reference to Christ's death and resurrection.[3]


The churches in van Eyck's work are not based on historical buildings, but were amalgams of different buildings and fictitious spaces.[47] The church might resemble St. Donatian's, which has since been demolished; it seems to share similarities with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, with elements of Romanesque architecture.[45] Van Eyck's paintings are often spatially ambiguous; the more the viewer looks at them the more questions are raised. Reflecting a consensus among art historians, Ward interprets the contradictions as "either curiously incoherent or deliberately designed to enact a complex symbolic message."[29] Mary holds a stem that appears to grow from the parrot's feathers, culminating in a bouquet of red, white and blue flowers.[29] A parrot was sometimes used as an emblem for the Virgin, but its juxtaposition with the plant is incongruous. The parrot and plant emphasise the floral background, symbolising the Garden of Eden, accented by the figures of Adam of Eve. The flowers' colours represent purity, love and humility; its petals are a symbol of the cross and Christ's sacrifice. The narrative of original sin, the expulsion and redemption is thus captured in a single realistic device.[48]


The carved representations of Adam and Eve appear on the uprights of the throne. The capitals on the arms of the throne show Cain beating Abel to death with a club to Mary's left, and Samson opening the lion's jaws to her left.[49] The carvings on the architectural capitals depict Old Testament scenes, including the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek and the Sacrifice of Isaac.


Here the visual and thematic elements are similar to those of the Chancellor Rolin Madonna. Van Eyck is concerned with showing the presence of a vision and therefore of illustrating the reality of God in our world. Just as Nicolas Rolin is shown in his palace, in the midst of an identifiable environment that seems to make his vision of the Virgin all the more real, so Canon van der Paele is shown in the choir of the collegiate church of St. Donatian in Bruges, where he is being presented to the Virgin by St. George and St. Donatian. Hans Belting is of the opinion that this picture once hung in the choir of the now destroyed church. This would mean that the depicted location mirrored the real location. Van der Paele would therefore have been able to see himself in the very place of his depicted vision and so "prove" to the world at large the reality of his divine experience.


The exquisite brocades, furs, and silks are shown in an extraordinarily lifelike and brilliant way, a way that confirms their reality, their tangibility. On the other hand, the reliefs and sculptures on the capitals in the background and on the Virgin's throne all allude to Christ's salvation of humanity. The depictions on the throne of Adam and Eve, Cain killing Abel, and Samson fighting the lion, together with the depiction on the capitals of Abraham sacrificing Isaac, create an Old Testament framework which allows the observer to reflect on the mercy of God, who sent his son, Christ the Redeemer, into the world. Redemption from sin (Cain killing his brother) is possible only through the power of faith (Samson overpowering the lion). The goodness and grace of God "at the moment of truth" (Abraham sacrificing Isaac) serves as proof of the redeeming power and presence of servants of God both celestial (St. George) and mortal (Canon van der Paele).


This is how van der Paele might have expressed the message of the painting-that paradise was at hand-a message confirmed by its being set in a very real but also sacred context. The Virgin is pictures holding a nosegay and her son a parrot - unmistakable echoes of the Garden of Eden - and both figures have turned to face the meditating canon.


--------------------
One of Jan van Eyck's most elaborate paintings, The Madonna with Canon Van der Paele depicts the wealthy Canon kneeling before the Virgin and Child. The figures of Saint Donatian and Saint George flank him.


This painting is similar to the Madonna and Chancellor Rolin (see Related Paintings below) in that it presents us with a vision of God in our physical world. Van der Paele has a manuscript in his left hand and his glasses in his right as he probably just finished reciting from the book.


Canon Van der Paele is shown in his home environment, his church of St. Donatian, experiencing the divinity of God through Mary and Christ the Child.


Iconography: 
All of the Depictions on the throne represents God's plan for salvation; 
- Adam and Eve - Sin 
- Samson overcoming a lion - Redemption from sin through faith 
- Abraham Sacrificing Isaac - Shows the goodness and grace of God 


Flower: Mary expressing her love for Christ by giving him a gift.


St. Donatian: Represents the church


Salvation: Mary is holding a nosegay and Christ holds a parrot. These items reflect the Garden of Eden.


Another impressive and innovative use of oil paintings, this work demonstrates van Eyck's mastery of indirect light, detail and realism.


Use of light: 
The light comes into the image from the upper left of the painting. Mary and the Child are illuminated giving them prominence in the scene.


The use of indirect light is spectacular - the light hitting Saint Georges' armor is reflected and refracted many times over.


Technical innovations: 
With the use of oil paints Jan van Eyck was able to push perspective, coloring and shades of light even further.


Layering the paints gave van Eyck almost complete control and allows him to create subtle differences in colors. Also, the oils often act as a glaze which has the ability to trap light which van Eyck takes advantage of by using indirect light and sometimes two different light sources.


Mood, tone and emotion: 
The figure of the Canon Van der Paele is shown as the next point to observe after Mary and Christ. This was probably done to depict some short of ranking as Van der Paele appears to have wanted to be inducted or experience something divine.


Perspective: 
The surfaces are one of the most intriguing aspects of the painting. The clarity with which we see Saint Georges' armor and from the clothing, to the wood and then back to the clothing - each piece of texture is perfectly identifiable.


Natural vs. Artificial Imagery: 
Here, like with some of van Eyck's other works, the detailed presentations of the religious figures bring the whole scene to life. 


----------------------
When Carol Purtle published her influential study of Van Eyck’s Marian paintings, it ran counter to a growing methodological tendency, which has become increasingly evident over the last twenty years or so, to favor iconographically minimalist interpretations of early Netherlandish paintings whereby only obvious symbols are accepted as necessary or valid. This article argues that this reductionist trend is in direct contradiction of the allusive and responsive ways in which Eyckian paintings communicate symbolic meaning visually, using a distinctive optical language which establishes a fluid integration of description and meaning. The following discussion demonstrates how this language operates on a symbolic level using the example of a single object–the pair of spectacles in The Virgin and Child with Canon Joris van der Paele (completed 1436).


Jan van Eyck’s Virgin and Child with Canon Joris van der Paele (completed 1436; fig. 1) is arguably the most elaborate and impressive demonstration of the artist’s fascination with optical concepts and effects.1 The painting depicts Van der Paele, a wealthy canon of the Church of Saint Donatian in Bruges, kneeling before the enthroned Virgin and Child, flanked by Saint George and Saint Donatian. The group occupy the dark interior of a church, implicitly illuminated by a source of light in front of the painting (to the upper left) which appears to activate color, tone, and texture–from the gold threads of Saint Donatian’s brocade to Saint George’s shiny armor–as it is reflected, re-reflected, and refracted from different surfaces.2 In his left hand, Van der Paele clutches a manuscript, from which he was apparently reading just moments before, and, in his right hand, he holds a pair of spectacles (fig. 2).3 Their frame casts a shadow onto the book and the text beneath one of the lenses is visibly distorted.


The following discussion uses the canon’s spectacles to analyze how the visual intentions of the painting, or more specifically its descriptive language, control or inform our interpretation of symbolic meaning. My selection of this particular, apparently insignificant, motif has two (related) purposes: first, as the canon’s spectacles have to date not received significant comment in analyses of the painting, I would like to redress this apparent oversight; and second, as an example of the kind of optical device that Van Eyck was clearly interested in, I would like to demonstrate how symbolic and descriptive concerns are integrated as part of the painting’s optical language. The central argument is that Van Eyck’s engagement with optical concepts and effects facilitated a uniquely Eyckian iconography characterized by a fluid and integrated relationship between symbolic ideas and the means of their visual expression.


Literalist versus Multilevel Symbolism
The essential tenet of the iconographically minimalist approach that has dominated recent scholarship is that where a literal, normative explanation for an object is sufficient to explain its presence, symbolic meaning is both unnecessary and unlikely (the basic principle of Ockham’s Razor).4 This explanation could certainly apply to the spectacles in Van Eyck’s painting, which were presumably intended to refer to a pair actually owned and used by the canon. Although the painting itself provides the only evidence of Van der Paele’s spectacles, the documentary record offers several circumstantial reasons why he might have needed them: he may, for example, have required them for reading, as a result of the onset of presbyopia (age-related farsightedness); or he may have experienced problems with his vision as a result of the medical condition (temporal arteritis?) that had prevented him from regularly attending Matins from 1431 onward.5 Alternatively, he may have required them much earlier in life to aid his work in the papal curia at Rome, where he had served as an abbreviator (scriptor) from 1396.6


For those scholars content with a literalist explanation, any one of these possibilities would presumably be sufficient to explain the significance of this apparently incidental detail. In reference to these biographical circumstances, it seems likely that the spectacles refer visually to (or symbolize) his failing health or his occupation–or perhaps both simultaneously. There are, however, two substantial problems with positing biographical realism as the sole explanation: first, whether Van der Paele owned spectacles or not, the decision to be pictured with them was, at this time, highly unusual; second, reading the spectacles in such a strictly nonsymbolic way runs counter to the way in which the painting encourages the viewer to recognize far more fluid relationships between physical objects and symbolic ideas.


In response to the first of these two problems, it is significant, yet only rarely noted in art-historical literature, that Van der Paele is the earliest known patron in early Netherlandish art to be pictured with a pair of spectacles. It is also striking that other patrons–some of whom must have worn spectacles in real life–apparently did not follow his example, as no other fifteenth-century portraits survive which show this same motif.


The textual record provides a very clear explanation for this relative invisibility of the device in the visual arts; generally speaking their owners were reluctant to openly display their reliance on eyeglasses. Duke Francesco Sforza of Milan expressed what apparently is a fairly typical sentiment among those who, usually through old age, became reliant on glasses. Writing to his ambassador in Florence to request thirty-six pairs in October 1462, the duke was quite careful to add the following disingenuous qualification: “We inform you that we do not want them for our use because, thank God, we do not need them.”7 Similarly, Petrarch in his Letter to Posterity laments: “For a long time I had very keen sight which, contrary to my hopes, left me when I was over sixty years of age, so that to my annoyance I had to seek the help of eyeglasses.”8 In a similar vein, the privy seal scribe Thomas Hoccleve admitted in his Ballad to my Gracious Lord of York (1411) that despite having strained his eyes for twenty-four years, he was too proud to wear spectacles.9


So what, we might reasonably ask, was the motivation behind Van der Paele’s evidently unusual, if not unprecedented, decision to be painted with his spectacles?


As the following case study will demonstrate, the answer to this seemingly straightforward question raises a number of important theoretical issues (and problems), beyond biographical realism and social connotation, concerning the way in which painted objects that are not obviously symbolic direct and engage meaning in Van Eyck’s paintings.


-----------------------
The painting Madonna with Canon Joris Van der Paele shows the Virgin Mary with her Child amidst Saint Donatian of Reims, Saint George and the commissioner of the painting, Canon Van der Paele. The Canon is portrayed dressed in a white surplice, kneeling down in front of Mary and Baby Jesus, holding his prayer book and his glasses in his hands. Mary is seated on a copiously decorated throne dressed in a red cloak. Jesus is sitting on her lap on a white cloth. He is playing with a green, ring-necked parakeet while handing a little bouquet of flowers to Mary. Next to Joris Van der Paele, his patron saint, Saint George, is walking into the scene, dressed in a harness. He takes off his helmet and salutes Jesus with 'Adona[i]' ('lord' in Hebrew) - as written on his harness - and introduces the Canon to Mary and Jesus. He is holding a white flag with a red cross clasped in his arm.


On Mary's left is the bishop Saint Donatian of Reims. He is wearing a cope (a liturgical garment) decorated with golden and blue embroidery and a mitre. In one hand he is holding a crosier and in the other hand his attribute, a wheel with five burning candles. The scene is depicted in an apse or a rounded construction, of which the round arches are supported by pillars featuring ornamented capitals.


The painting is still mounted in its original frame. This frame has several inscriptions amongst which is the artist's signature.