A Benedictine Monk

The Subject of the Painting: Presented in a near-profile view, this forthright image of a man is incisively drawn to accentuate the gaunt, bony structure of the face. His physiognomy is closely observed and rendered in minute detail featuring tousled grey hair, deep-set and heavy-lidded eyes, an unusually long, aquiline nose, and a thin-lipped mouth set over a square jaw. Protruding veins at the man’s proper-left temple, and sagging jowls enhance the description of advanced age. The man is tonsured and wears the habit of the Benedictine Order; thus, he has been identified as a Benedictine monk.

The close-up view and tight cropping of the image, and the long-held assumption that the painting is a fragment (similar to Dieric Bouts’s Portrait of a Man (14.40.644), has raised questions about whether this is truly a portrait or the representation of a saint cut from a larger composition (Campbell 1979, 1981; Bauman 1986; Ainsworth 1998). However, recent technical examination (see forthcoming Technical Notes) has clarified that the panel exhibits a barbe on the left, right, and top edges and is trimmed slightly at the lower edge. Therefore, the image was painted within a now-lost frame as is typical of independent portraits. What separates this example from that genre, however, is its deviation from other conventional features. The man’s hands are not included at the lower edge, as was common for independent portraits at the time. Furthermore, he does not glance up or out of the picture, as does Rogier van der Weyden’s Portrait of Francesco d’Este (32.100.43); or Hans Memling’s Portrait of a Man (1975.1.112), Portrait of an Old Man (14.40.648), or Portrait of Tommaso Portinari (14.40.626). Nor does he directly address the viewer, as in Petrus Christus’s Portrait of a Carthusian (49.7.19). Instead, with downcast eyes, the Benedictine conveys a melancholy demeanor or an attitude of moody introspection. The plain dark background, more usual for portraits of a generation or two earlier (such as those by Jan van Eyck),[1] further isolates the man both figuratively and emotionally.

The unusual nature of this painting is especially striking when it is compared, for example, to another figure belonging to a religious order, the lay brother portrayed by Petrus Christus in the Portrait of a Carthusian (49.7.19). The latter exhibits all of the characteristics of a formal portrait: a meticulously described sitter in three-quarter pose who inhabits a shallow, cornered room, while directly addressing the viewer from behind a fictive frame edge, signed and dated by the artist. In the present painting, however, few of these traditional features are present, except, of course, for the detailed rendering of physiognomy and the mere suggestion of interior space implied by a slight cast shadow behind the head. This begs the question of why a monk of the ascetic monastic Benedictine Order would commission a portrait of himself. If not a portrait, per se, then how can this image be understood?
The original frame for the painting, which might have included information about the sitter or the circumstances of the rendering, has been lost. The reverse retains its original back with later beveled edges, but it has not been painted with a marble imitation, or any coat of arms or personal motto, such as we find in Rogier’s Portrait of Francesco d’Este (32.100.43). Furthermore, the oak plank on which it was painted has an extremely tangential cut, that is, a far less desired cut for a commissioned portrait (see forthcoming Technical Notes). Rather than a conventional portrait, the painting appears to be an absorbing study of introspection or religious meditation. Such an emphasis on mood was typical of Hugo van der Goes to whom the painting has been attributed (for which see below). Hugo is also noted for his close study of contemporary individuals who populate his religious narrative paintings as casual participants, or who assume various featured roles, thus infusing his compositions with a sense of present-day reality – promoting both deeper as well as more easily accessible meaning.[2] Included among these examples are the Monforte Altarpiece, the Nativity of about 1470–75 and 1480–82 respectively (both Gemäldegalerie, Berlin), and the Death of the Virgin of 1481/82 (Groeningemuseum, Bruges; see Fig. 1 above). It has often been remarked that certain figures in Hugo’s paintings are painted with astonishing verisimilitude. They are so individualized, and so precise in their graphic depiction, that they appear to have been studied after life. Such life studies of individuals from Hugo’s environs, intended for subsequent incorporation in his paintings, may be found in examples such as his Portrait of an Old Man (2010.118), a likeness produced in oil on paper attached to wood.

The present work reminds one of various heads in Hugo’s Death of the Virgin. As Elizabeth Dhanens noted, these heads are painted in a manner so lively and precise, and the graphic depiction of their features so closely observed and rendered that they must have been based on some of the brothers of the Roode Klooster where Hugo then resided.[3] As these monks by their rule would have been clean-shaven and not bearded as they are in Hugo’s painting, it is unlikely that they represented actual monks of the order. However, several of them appear to have been studied in advance from life for their demeanor as much as for the details of their physiognomies (figs. 2, 3, 4). The Met’s Benedictine Monk can most likely be explained as a character study of this type for incorporation into a larger composition, rather than a conventional, commissioned portrait.[4]

The Attribution and Date: Early on, scholars attributed this painting to Rogier van der Weyden or an artist in his orbit (Friedländer 1916, 1921; Weale 1922; Panofsky 1940, 1953). The particularly linear approach to the drawing of the sharply defined facial features, all rather thinly painted, suggests this, as is borne out by a comparison with Rogier’s Portrait of Francesco d’Este (32.100.43). Subsequently, the majority of scholars attributed the Benedictine to Hugo van der Goes, with some vacillating between Hugo and Hugo’s circle (see References). The psychologically intense character of the man and his profoundly meditative mood for many linked the Benedictine to Hugo’s oeuvre. However, the execution of the head in paint appears to flatten forms; it is distinctly different from Hugo’s works where the heads appear more three-dimensional and to be painted with broader, sometimes disengaged brushstrokes and impasto touches that create a fleshier depiction of the physiognomy.

It is rather with the close followers of Hugo that the Benedictine most closely fits. Among these examples is a Virgin and Child with Saints Thomas, John the Baptist, Jerome, and Louis of about 1480 (Phoebus Foundation, Antwerp, fig. 5).[5] In particular, the head of Saint Louis and the Benedictine are similar not only in the introspective attitude portrayed, but also in the way the heads are described (fig. 6). Light comes from the left side, casting the proper left side of the faces into shadow, and sharply modeling their features. Comparable are the beautifully sinuous contour lines of the heads in near-profile view, the deep-set eyes with heavy upper lids, the unusually long, thin noses, and the tightly pursed lips over a prominent chin. Considering the somber attitude of the man—equivalent to that in the apostles in the Death of the Virgin of 1481–82—and the details of execution—analogous to Saint Louis in the Phoebus Foundation painting—The Met’s Benedictine was most likely painted by an exceptional artist within Hugo’s immediate circle and in the early 1480s when the influence of Van der Goes was still strongly felt.

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2022

[1] Till–Holger Borchert, Van Eyck, Cologne, 2008, pp. 34–47; see also http://Closertovaneyck.KIKIRPA.be
[2] See Maryan W. Ainsworth, “Hugo’s Approach to Portraiture,” Stephan Kemperdick, Erik Eising, eds., Hugo van der Goes, exh. cat., Berlin, Gemäldegalerie SMB, March 31–July 16, 2023), Munich, forthcoming Summer 2022.
[3] Elisabeth Dhanens, Hugo van der Goes, Antwerp, 1998, p. 356.
[4] For other examples of portraits that functioned as studies for other works, see Catheline Périer–d’Ieteren, “Un portrait peint á l’huile sur papier marouflé á attribuer au Maître des Portraits Princiers,” Annales d’Histoire de l’Art & d’Archéologie, 37 (2015): 7–29. See also the examples among the works of Quinten Massys: Head of St. Anthony(?) (Palacio de la Virreina, Barcelona); Two Heads (Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin), perhaps studies for Quinten Massys, Two Monks at Prayer (Palazzo Doria, Rome); and Portrait of an Old Man (Jacquemart–André, Paris) for the Portrait of an Old Man (Ronald Lauder Collection, New York). For photos of these, see Max J. Friedländer, Early Netherlandish Painting, vol. 8: “Quentin Massys,” Leyden and Brussels, 1971, no. 30, pl. 36, (91), p. 77; no. 80, pl. 68; no. 51, p. 53.
[5] Maryan W. Ainsworth,“The Middendorf Altarpiece by a Follower of Hugo van der Goes,” in A. Dubois, J. Couvert & T.–H. Borchert, eds, Technical Studies of Paintings: Problems of Attribution (15th–17th Centuries), Symposium XIX, Bruges, September 2014, Leuven: Peeters, 2018, pp. 60–73. See also catalogue entry by Till–Holger Borchert in forthcoming in Stephan Kemperdick, Erik Eising, eds., Hugo van der Goes, exh. cat., Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, March 31–July 16, 2023), Munich, forthcoming Summer 2022.

Support: The support was constructed from a single plank of oak, with the grain oriented vertically. Technical examination of the support indicated that the painting is not a fragment cut from a larger panel but an independent painting (see Catalogue Entry).

The original painted composition remains largely intact, with three of the four original edges preserved. Unpainted wood margins were originally present around the entire perimeter, at least 2 cm wide, related to the preparation of the panel in an engaged frame. The unpainted wood margins are in fact largely preserved at left and right, measuring 1.1 cm and 2 cm respectively, although they are now covered by overpaint that extended the composition. The overpaint also covers the barbes at left and right, although a narrow buildup of material can be seen at the edges under close examination. The panel was cut at top and bottom, removing the unpainted margins entirely and trimming into the painted composition at the bottom somewhat. The original edge of the painting is partly preserved at the top; traces of a barbe are evident at the top right.

Examination of the reverse revealed more information about the alteration of the panel. The panel, measuring about 7/16 of an inch thick, apparently retains its original back. There are narrow bevels around the perimeter of the reverse that, while old, are not original. These date to the resizing of the panel. There are also small holes at the upper left and right corners which were likely made at the same time that the panel was resized and beveled, to hold the panel in its frame. The holes, now filled with a radio-opaque fill material, are also apparent in the x-radiograph (see fig. 7 above).

The trimming of the unpainted margins at top and bottom and the extending of the painted composition to left and right over the unpainted margins resulted in a somewhat wider format. The panel may have been altered to fit a new frame.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a white ground. There seems to be an additional lead white-containing priming layer present, as broad strokes of this material can be seen in the x-radiograph. Examination with infrared reflectography did not reveal many distinct underdrawn lines.[1] There does appear to be some underdrawing along the proper right side of the man’s forehead, executed in a liquid medium (fig. 8). This is where the forehead was initially underdrawn more broadly and adjusted. The underdrawn lines can be difficult to distinguish from overlying paint in the reflectogram. It is possible that there is some underdrawing present at other contours that was closely followed by dark painted contours, making it difficult to state the extent of the underdrawing with certainty.

Paint Layers: This remarkable likeness relies on a very delicate painting technique with a minimal application of paint. The artist used warm brown glazes to create much of the structure of the flesh, the deepest folds and the thinner creases, as well as to create shading. The brown glazes are now somewhat rubbed, making them appear even thinner and translucent. Aside from a slight adjustment to the contour of the man’s forehead, there do not appear to have been any changes made during the course of painting.

The background has altered to some extent. It was originally a solid, bright green, but this has discolored to brown, as is characteristic of copper-containing green paint. This brown was slightly broken up during a past conservation treatment, resulting in the current mottled appearance. It does appear that there was a lighter green paint applied around the man’s shoulders, perhaps to set him off slightly. In addition, there is a semicircular shape to the right of his head, which could be a shadow cast on a wall directly behind the sitter, locating him in a shallow space.

Sophie Scully 2022

[1] Infrared reflectography completed with an OSIRIS InGaAs near-infrared camera with a 6-element, 150mm focal length f/5.6–f/45 lens; 900-1700nm spectral response, January 2021.

Farr (until 1813; his sale, Christie's, London, February 26, 1813, no. 55, as by Jan van Eyck); Bulver, London, 1914; John Linnell, London (until 1918; his sale, Christie's, London, March 15, 1918, no. 146, as "Portrait of a Monk," by Roger van der Weyden, for £19.95.0 to Leggatt); [Leggatt, London, from 1918]; Michael Dreicer, New York (until d. 1921)

Exposition universelle et internationale de Bruxelles. "Cinq siècles d'art," May 24–October 13, 1935, no. 34 (as "Portrait of a Monk," by Hugo van der Goes).

Paris. Musée de l'Orangerie. "De van Eyck à Bruegel," November–December 1935, no. 46.

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. 31.

Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. "Hugo van der Goes: Between Pain and Bliss," March 31–July 16, 2023, no. 14.3.

Max J. Friedländer. Von Eyck bis Bruegel: Studien zur Geschichte der Niederländischen Malerei. Berlin, 1916, p. 175, lists this picture in an index of works by Rogier van der Weyden, as with Bulver, London.

Martin Conway. The Van Eycks and Their Followers. London, 1921, p. 148, describes a portrait at that time in the Dreicer collection, depicting "a middle–aged courtier of very refined expression, with hair cut low above the eyebrows and hands joined in an attitude of prayer" [unlikely to be the present work].

Max J. Friedländer. "Mr. Dreicer's Portrait by Rogier van der Weyden." Art in America 9 (1921), pp. 188–89, ill., notes that Dreicer recently purchased the "portrait of a young man" [sic.] by Rogier van der Weyden that the author first saw with Bulver in London [see Ref. Friedänder 1916].

H. B. W[ehle]. "The Michael Dreicer Collection." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 17 (May 1922), p. 100, ill. p. 102, calls it a portrait of a Benedictine monk by Rogier van der Weyden.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 4, Hugo van der Goes. Berlin, 1926, pp. 48, 126–27, 164, no. 13, pl. 20, calls it "portrait of an 'older' man [but see Ref. Friedländer 1921]; attributes it to Hugo van der Goes later in his career; considers it a fragment from a devotional work.

Franz Dülberg. Niederländische Malerei der Spätgotik und Renaissance. Potsdam, 1929, p. 89, as a work in the spirit of Hugo's later years in the cloister [Roode Klooster], probably a fragment of a larger work.

Robert Rey Editions de l'Abeille. Hugo van der Goes. Fontainebleau, 1936, p. 43. pl. 16, attributes it to the painter, suggesting that it represents one of the canons of the monastery of the Roode Klooster.

Karl Oettinger. "Das Rätsel der Kunst des Hugo van der Goes." Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, n.s., 12 (1938), pp. 55–57, ill., as by Hugo, well after 1478.

J. B. Knipping in Een reeks monografieën over hollandse en vlaamse schilders. Vol. 1, part 1, Vijftiende en zestiende eeuw: Van Eyck, Van der Weyden, Van der Goes, Bosch, Van Leyden, Van Scorel. Amsterdam, [1939], p. 43, ill. p. 40, compares the head with that of Joseph of Arimathea in Hugo's "Death of the Virgin" (Groeninge Museum, Bruges).

Erwin Panofsky. Letter to Margaretta Salinger. April 2, 1940, as by a follower of Rogier van der Weyden; compares it to a Portrait of a Lady in the National Gallery, London, which he also attributes to a Rogier follower.

Hulin de Loo. Pedro Berruguete et les portraits d'Urbin. [Brussels], 1942, p. 16, compares this head to that of Saint Stephen in the Liechtenstein Triptych [The Adoration of the Magi, Vaduz], which he attributes to Hugo, but also sees a connection with works by Joos van Wassenhove [Justus of Ghent].

Charles de Tolnay. "Hugo van der Goes as Portrait Painter." Art Quarterly 7 (Summer 1944), pp. 181, 189 n. 2, doubts Friedländer's (Ref. 1926) attribution of this portrait to Hugo observing that it is "difficult, in its present condition to determine its place in the development of the Master"; considers it a work of high quality, produced under the influence of Rogier.

Robert Rey. Hugo van der Goes. Brussels, 1945, pl. 37 and facing page, ill., dates it to Hugo's last years at the Roode Klooster, given the ascetic character and the treatment of volumes in the portrait.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 58–59, ill., attribute it to Hugo; consider it a late work, due to to the painting's "delicate and evolved" quality.

Leo van Puyvelde. The Flemish Primitives. Brussels, 1948, p. 29, pl. 75, as "Portrait of a Man" by Hugo.

Erwin Panofsky. Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character. Cambridge, Mass., 1953, vol. 1, p. 499 n. 1 (to p. 332), ascribes it to a follower of Rogier van der Weyden.

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 43.

Julius S. Held. "Erwin Panofsky, 'Early Netherlandish Painting, Its Origin[s] and Character'." Art Bulletin 37 (September 1955), p. 206, shares Panofsky's doubts regarding the attribution of this portrait to Hugo.

Valentin Denis. Hugo van der Goes. [Brussels], [1956], p. 30.

Erik Larsen. Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York. Utrecht, 1960, pp. 68, 118, fig. 17, as by Hugo.

Colin Eisler. "Erik Larsen, Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York, 1960." Art Bulletin 46 (March 1964), pp. 102–3, finds it hard to attribute it to Hugo or to a follower "aping the profundity of the master," as it is obscured by discolored varnish.

Friedrich Winkler. Das Werk des Hugo van der Goes. Berlin, 1964, pp. 87, 264, fig. 67, as a late work of Hugo; wonders if the head of Saint Stephen on the right wing of the Liechtenstein triptych [Vaduz] minght be a copy after our panel; suggests the monk was a member of the Roode Klooster.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 4, Hugo van der Goes. New York, 1969, pp. 30, 70, 104 n. 57, no. 13, pl. 24.

Robert A. Koch Bernard Berenson in Letter. February 23, 1971, doesn't feel that the portrait is nearly intense enough for Hugo, especially when compared to the Portrait of a Young Man (MMA 29.100.15).

A. de Bosque. "El retablo flamenco de la iglesia del Salvador de Valladolid." Archivo español de arte 46 (October–December 1973), p. 10, fig. 13, attributes it to Hugo; compares the features of the sitter in our portrait with those of the king holding Christ's hand in the Adoration of the Magi (Church of San Salvador, Valladolid) by an Antwerp master.

A. de Bosque. Quentin Metsys. Brussels, 1975, p. 136, fig. 131.

V. Denis. La peinture flamande 15e–16e–17e siècles. Brussels, 1976, p. 106, as by Hugo after 1475.

Lorne Campbell. Letter to Mary Sprinson. February 13, 1979, calls it "very close in style to the generally acknowledged works of Hugo"; does not consider this to be a portrait, but rather "a fragment cut from a religious painting, or conceivably an imaginary 'portrait' of some saintly personage"; observes that the head of the eldest king in the Monforte altarpiece (Gemäldegalerie, Berlin) is very similar.

Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann. Memo to Mary Sprinson. February 14, 1979, considers it in "style of Hugo van der Goes," and contemporary with him, but notes "a certain infuence from Rogier in the eyes, particularly the upper eyelids".

Colin Thompson. Letter to Mary Sprinson. March 16, 1979, considers it close to Hugo's work and possibly by him; dates it late, about the same time as his Berlin Nativity [Gemäldegalerie]; notes that it is "hardly a portrait as it stands"; agrees with Campbell's view [see Ref. 1979] that it might be an idealized portrait, though, in theory, it could also come from a composition with more than one figure.

Lorne Campbell. Unpublished text for MMA Bulletin. 1981, considers it "more probably by a highly gifted artist in Van der Goes's immediate circle" than by the master himself; comments on the uncertain status of the representaion — whether it is a likeness taken from a living person, or an idealized image of a saint or some other notable of the church.

B. de Patoul et al. Hugo van der Goes (1430/40–1482): L'homme et son oeuvre. Brussels, 1982, p. 24, no. 21, ill.

Guy Bauman. "Early Flemish Portraits, 1425–1525." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 43 (Spring 1986), pp. 11–12, ill. (color), agrees with Campbell [Ref. 1979] that it is not a true portrait, but "more likely a fragmentary representation of a Benedictine saint", perhaps Benedict himself.

Eric A. Gordon. "The Conservation of Hugo van der Goes's Portrait of a Donor with St. John the Baptist in The Walters Art Gallery." Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 46 (1988), p. 97 n. 11.

Introduction by Walter A. Liedtke in Flemish Paintings in America: A Survey of Early Netherlandish and Flemish Paintings in the Public Collections of North America. Antwerp, 1992, p. 336, no. 247, ill.

Paul Eeckhout in Les primitifs flamands et leur temps. Ed. Brigitte de Patoul and Roger van Schoute. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1994, pp. 432, 435, ill. (color).

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 254, ill.

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. 107–9, 139, 170, no. 8, ill. (color), as by Hugo van der Goes, from the late 1470s; suggests that it may have be excised from an altarpiece; finds the head close to those of his saints and magi, in particular St. Stephen in the Prince of Liechtenstein's triptych (Vaduz), which she accepts as autograph; notes that our monk contrasts with the sitters in Hugo's donor portraits, "whose alert, directed gazes connect them with the objects of their devotion"; believes this panel may exemplify the Netherlandish tradition of the holy figure represented as a living portrait .

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Hugo van der Goes and Portraiture." The Primacy of the Image in Northern European Art, 1400–1700: Essays in Honor of Larry Silver. Ed. Debra Taylor Cashion et al. Leiden, 2017, p. 28.

Susan Frances Jones. "Hugo van der Goes: Between Bliss and Pain." Burlington Magazine 165 (July 2023), p. 779.

Maryan W. Ainsworth in Hirmer Verlag. Hugo van der Goes: Between Pain and Bliss. Ed. Stephan Kemperdick and Erik Eising. Exh. cat., Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Berlin, 2023, p. 61 n. 1, p. 162, no. 14.3, ill. p. 165 (color).

Till-Holger Borchert in Hugo van der Goes: Between Pain and Bliss. Ed. Stephan Kemperdick and Erik Eising. Exh. cat., Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Berlin, 2023, p. 71.