The Last Judgment

The Artist: For a biography of Joos van Cleve, see the Catalogue Entry for The Holy Family (32.100.57).

The Subject of the Painting: The Last Judgment, representing the reappearance of Christ at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, is foretold in such biblical texts as Matthew 7:21–23, and 25:31–36; Luke 13: 23–28, and Revelation 20:11–12. A conventional iconography for Last Judgment images in the Low Countries was developed in the late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-centuries. It included Christ in the heavenly sphere on a rainbow with the globe of the world at his feet, raising his right hand, palm up, blessing the saved, while lowering his left hand, palm down, toward the damned below him. The lily, symbolizing Christ’s mercy, and the sword, representing justice, appear to the left and right of Christ’s head. The Virgin Mary and John the Baptist flank Christ, while the apostles are assembled behind them. Angels blow their trumpets to signal the Day of Judgment as souls emerge from their graves to be judged, and the Archangel Michael assists in separating the saved from the damned.[1]

What is immediately apparent in this Last Judgment is that several of the accustomed details are missing here. The composition is at once familiar, presenting a clear division of Christ in heaven surrounded by angels, from the judged below in the earthly realm, with the Archangel Michael separating the damned at the right from the saved at the left. But there is no lily and sword, no world globe at Christ’s feet, and the Virgin Mary and Saint John the Baptist are absent. In addition, Christ directly addresses the viewer and signals his blessing with his right hand, as if intended not just for the saved souls below but also for the viewer. These differences from the standard approach to early sixteenth-century Last Judgment scenes is very clear from a comparison with a Last Judgment attributed to Pieter Coecke van Aelst of around 1532 (Patrimonio Nacional, Madrid; see fig. 1 above). Despite a similarity in size and, generally, in composition, the varied details indicate two quite different approaches to the theme of the Last Judgment.

The departure of The Met’s painting from the standard approach raises the question of its meaning and function. In the absence of any helpful clues concerning the commission of the painting or its intended location, one must turn to the religious context of Antwerp at the time, which, as will be discussed below, was the likely origin of the painting. Early in the sixteenth century, Antwerp was the economic hub of western Europe and center of cultural exchange. It was also a focus of existing tensions within the Catholic Church and burgeoning hotbed of heterodox publications.[2] It thus was ripe to become the spawning ground for Reformist religious teachings, specifically those of Martin Luther, whose treatises and sermons were disseminated quickly and widely, thanks to Antwerp’s highly developed printing industry. Already in 1520 Hillen van Hoochstraten had published the Reformer’s works, and by 1522 twelve other editions of Luther’s writings appeared in Latin and an additional ten in Dutch.[3] Antwerp also became the main international center for printing vernacular translations of the Bible. The 1526 Dutch translation of a German Lutheran edition of the New Testament (Septembertestament) was highly popular and soon became an alternative to the Catholic versions of the Bible.[4]

It is instructive to look at what Martin Luther had to say in his treatises and sermons about the Last Judgment, in particular about the Deësis, that is, the representation of Jesus, Mary, and John together in Last Judgment scenes. As Franz Posset points out, Luther specifically mentioned the matter in his 1533 sermon on Luke 21 for the second Sunday in Advent, where he spoke about the priority of Christ and his critique on Bernard of Clairvaux and Medieval spirituality. He lamented that Christ the Redeemer was not discussed, but instead painted like an angry judge with rod and sword, intending to punish the world. Furthermore, Luther rejected the idea of Christ as a merciless judge, and found no basis in the Bible for the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist as intercessors on Judgment day.[5] Later in 1538, Luther spoke again explicitly: “They make out of Christ nothing but a strict, angry judge of whom one has to be afraid, as he wants to throw us into hell; in this way one has painted him as sitting in judgment, on the rainbow, with his mother Mary and John the Baptist on each side as intercessors against this terrible anger.”[6] Luther objected not only to the image of an angry judge, but also to the intercession and advocacy by Mary and John. Instead, he insisted on a reformed notion of salvation by faith and grace, not by law and intercessions.

This new theology perhaps provides the explanation for The Met painting in which Christ appears not as the angry Judge, but as the beneficent Redeemer, signaling his blessing of the viewer. Further in consideration of the Lutheran Reformist viewpoint, the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist are absent as intercessors. To the left and right of Christ in heaven, the apostles, rather than standing calmly in observation of Christ’s actions, appear to be deep in discussion. Are they debating Luther’s theology and Reformist point of view?

The Attribution and Date: When this painting was acquired by Graham Farber Blandy in 1909, Max Rooses, the well-known Rubens scholar and Director of the Plantin-Moretus Museum in Antwerp, wrote him that the painting was most likely by Bernard van Orley, dating to around 1520 (see Ref.). He called attention to similarities with Van Orley’s monumental Last Judgment Triptych, commissioned by the Almoner’s Guild for the cathedral of Antwerp in 1517–18 and completed around 1524–25 (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp; fig. 2). Rooses astutely noted that the Christ figure reminded him of Raphael and the foreground figures of academic studies, as is typical of Van Orley’s style. By the time the painting was donated to The Met from the Blandy estate, Margaretta Salinger (1941) had correctly reattributed the painting to Joos van Cleve. This attribution, however, has not been unanimously accepted (see Hand 2004), due to the compromising factor of the problematic condition of the painting that was significantly damaged and restored in the past (see Technical Notes). Furthermore, a Last Judgment requiring an abundance of nude figures is not characteristic of Joos’s production, and this painting is his singular example of the theme (Hand 2004, p. 189). In addition, Joos more routinely looked to Leonardo da Vinci for inspiration rather than to examples by Raphael.[7]

These anomalies concerning the attribution of The Met’s Last Judgment can be explained through close technical examination of the painting and through the likely circumstances of Joos’s artistic connections and religious circumstances in Antwerp at the time. As Sophie Scully has noted (see Technical Notes), much of the underdrawing is damaged along with the paint layers, and the underdrawing that remains is difficult to see due to the strong craquelure, which appears very dark in the infrared reflectogram. But where it is clearly visible, the preliminary sketch is characteristic of the style and expressive spontaneity of Joos van Cleve’s underdrawings as compared, for example, to that found in The Met’s Crucifixion with Saints and a Donor (41.190.20a–c). There is extensive paint loss in various areas down to the wood support, as one can readily see in the x-radiograph and the infrared reflectogram assembly (figs. 3 and 4). These losses must be carefully identified in order to ascertain the parts that are in good condition and represent Joos’s handling, such as the woman front and center who rests on her left knee, some of the apostles at upper right and left, and the trumpet-playing angel at the left. The male figure at the lower left, although damaged, shows a head type that we readily recognize in other Joos van Cleve works, such as in the figure of Saint John in the Crucifixion (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) or Saint John in Saint John on Patmos (University of Michigan Museum of Art, Ann Arbor).[8] Unfortunately, key areas where one would normally look to identify the hand of the artist are damaged and overpainted, such as Christ’s head and the head of Saint Michael.

The commission for a Last Judgment must have been a challenge for Joos, whose mastery of the nude was limited to figures of the infant and adult Christ. It is not a surprise, then, that Joos turned for inspiration to one of the most important and visually powerful images in Antwerp in the 1520s, namely Bernard van Orley’s Last Judgment Triptych and Acts of Mercy (fig. 2). It is a testament to Van Orley’s reputation outside of Brussels that he was chosen for this important commission. Although on a far grander scale, the centerpiece of Van Orley’s Last Judgment must have provided a source for Joos van Cleve as he designed his composition. The two share a number of features in common: a similar pose of the Christ figure with outstretched arms and swirling red draperies emerging from the rainbow light behind him; the surrounding angels, two of which are trumpeting the signal for the dead to be raised; Saint Michael brandishing his sword and driving the sinners toward hell at the right; the clear separation of the saved from the damned; and the varied animated poses of the figures as they emerge from their graves. Van Orley assimilated his Christ and the classical-style figures emerging from their graves from Raphaelesque designs for tapestries that had been sent north to be woven in Brussels.[9] Joos van Cleve, in turn, was influenced by Van Orley’s reception of Italian style, specifically Raphaelesque examples, for his Last Judgment. Unusual as it was for Joos’s oeuvre, it was likely the theme of the Last Judgment that prompted his embrace of Romanism as seen through Van Orley’s example.

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2020

[1] For numerous examples, see Harbison 1976.
[2] See Victoria Christman, Pragmatic Toleration, The Politics of Religious Heterodoxy in Early Reformation Antwerp, 1515–1555, Rochester, 2015, especially chapter four: “People of the Book, Heterodox Printers and Publishers in Antwerp.” See also Joos van Cleve's Annunciation (32.100.60) for mention of Antwerp’s religious strife in the early sixteenth century.
[3] Christman 2015, p. 70.
[4] Angelo Serrentino, “The Reformation in Antwerp: Its Rise and Impact,” in Saeculum Undergraduate Academic Journal 13, no. 1 (2018), pp. 10–11.
[5] Franz Posset, “Martin Luther on ‘Deësis.’ His Rejection of the Artistic Representation of ‘Jesus, John, and Mary,” in Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme 20 (Summer 1996), p. 66.
[6] Posset 1996, p. 67.
[7] See Dan Ewing, “Joos van Cleve und Leonardo, Italienische Kunst in niederländischer Übersetzung,” in Peter van den Brink, ed., Leonardo des Nordens, exh. cat., Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen, 2011, pp. 113–31.
[8] See Hand 2004, pp. 84–85, figs. 82, 83.
[9] See Maryan W. Ainsworth, “Romanism as a Cataylist for Change in Bernard van Orley’s Workshop Practices,” in Molly Faries, ed., Making and Marketing, Studies of the Painting Process in Fifteenth-Century Netherlandish Workshops, Turnhout, 2006, pp. 99–118.

Support: The support was constructed from three oak boards from the Baltic/Polish region, with the grain oriented vertically. Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1511 and a more plausible date of 1517 onwards.[1] The original panel was planed and cradled in a later structural intervention; it now measures about 1/4 inch (0.6 cm) thick.

The original dimensions of the support are preserved. The panel was prepared with a white ground up to the edges, indicating that a frame was not engaged at that time.

Preparation: Examination with infrared reflectography revealed the presence of an extensive underdrawing, executed using a dry material.[2] The underdrawing can be difficult to discern due to the strong appearance of the craquelure in the reflectogram and the widespread retouching, which appears as dark passages in the reflectogram (see fig. 4 above). But in well-preserved areas sketchy, expressive underdrawing that is characteristic of Joos van Cleve can be observed. See, for example, the group of apostles at the upper right, whose heads were confidently drawn, suggesting individual expressions and features with only a few lines (fig. 5) Or, the left hand of Christ, where, though the thumb is damaged, Joos’s distinctively elongated—almost ghoulish—underdrawing for the fingers can be observed (fig. 6). It appears that all figures were underdrawn, including the crowds of the damned and the saved. There are only occasional instances of hatching, most often indicating shadows on the ground, as seen beneath the Archangel Michael. This does not seem to be the “woodcut style” of underdrawing characterized by Micha Leeflang in several of Joos’s paintings, which she associates with paintings executed in part by workshop assistants, but is instead reminiscent of the loosely sketched underdrawings seen in those paintings by the master himself.[3]

The reflectogram reveals that the artist demarcated the ultimate dimensions of his composition with an underdrawn rectangle, about 1/4 to 1/2 inch smaller than the panel. The painting was executed within this rectangle, leaving narrow margins of unpainted white ground around all edges that are hidden by the frame.

Paint Layers: The painting has suffered extensive losses and so it is vital to understand the type and location of the damages in order to evaluate the areas that are well preserved. The damages mainly consist of large losses of paint and ground down to the panel. However, where not entirely lost, the painting remains in quite good condition and is hardly abraded. The areas of loss are readily apparent in the x-radiograph; they appear as dark passages often peppered with white dashes (likely related to a past treatment to fill the losses; fig. 3). The losses were re-integrated during the most recent restoration, with mimetic retouching, in order that the damage would not detract from the beauty of the original. The retouching can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from the original paint in normal light, particularly when assessing from a photograph, but is immediately evident in the infrared reflectogram where it appears as dark passages. Simultaneous comparison of the infrared reflectogram and the x-radiograph alongside the painting allows one to focus on the well-preserved areas.

A few areas were particularly useful in considering painting technique and comparing with other paintings by Joos van Cleve. The woman resting on one knee in the center of the lower register remains nearly entirely intact and offers examples of handling characteristic of the artist. The subtle modeling of the fleshtones with feathering strokes of the brush compares well to paintings by Joos van Cleve in The Met’s collection, for example the rendering of Christ in the Virgin and Child (1982.60.47). Note the sensitive rendering of the lips and nose in both, with soft transitions and a touch of pink at the nostrils of both Christ in the Virgin and Child (see fig. 1 in the Catalogue Entry/Techical Notes for that work) and the woman in the Last Judgment (fig. 7). The head of the apostle at upper left (fig. 8), fifth from the left edge, is a good example of a well-preserved smaller figure. At this reduced scale individual brushstrokes are more apparent than in larger figures, applied in parallel curving strokes that accentuate the man’s round face and knitted brow. Note also the careful application of discrete white brushstrokes, curving this way and that, to describe his curling beard.

In addition to examining the well-preserved areas, it is imperative to remember that some areas ordinarily consulted when considering attribution are largely restoration. For example, Christ’s face is marred by a large damage as is the face of the archangel Michael. However, as seen in close examination of the infrared reflectogram and x-radiograph and in the few examples given above, there are many well-preserved passages to look to instead. Additionally, the color palette is generally well preserved and likely near to its original appearance, including the richly colored wings of the angels and the vivid red of Christ’s robe.

Sophie Scully 2020

[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 1500. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1509, more plausible is a felling date between 1513..1515….1519 + x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1511 upwards. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and 2 years for seasoning a creation is plausible from 1517 upwards.”
[2] Infrared reflectography was acquired using a Merlin Indigo InGaAs near-infrared camera fitted with a StingRay macro lens customized for the wavelengths covered by the camera, 0.9 to 1.7 microns, captured by Evan Read, 2014.
[3] "The 'Saint Reinhold Altarpiece' by Joos van Cleve and his Workshop: New Insights into the Influence of Albrecht Dürer on the Working Process," in Molly Faries, ed., Making and Marketing, Studies of the Painting Process in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Netherlandish Workshops, Turnhout, 2006, pp. 24–27.

?monastery, near Douai (from about 1764, as by Jean Bellegambe); [Louis Delehaye, Antwerp, until 1909, as by Van Orley or Bellegambe; sold for Fr 50,000 to Blandy]; Graham F. Blandy, New York (from 1909); Mrs. Graham F. Blandy, New York (until d. 1930; her estate, 1930–40)

Dallas Museum of Fine Arts. "30 Masterpieces: An Exhibition of Paintings from the Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art," October 4–November 23, 1947, unnumbered cat.

Iowa City. State University of Iowa, School of Fine Arts. "30 Masterpieces: An Exhibition of Paintings from the Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art," January 9–March 31, 1948, unnumbered cat.

Bloomington. Indiana University. "30 Masterpieces: An Exhibition of Paintings from the Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art," April 18–May 16, 1948, no catalogue.

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. 98.

Max Rooses. Letter to Graham Farber Blandy. July 24, 1909, as by Bernart van Orley, about 1520; observes similarities with his Last Judgment in Antwerp [Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten]; notes that the figure of Christ reminds him of the figures of Raphael and that the foreground figures resemble academic studies.

Margaretta M. Salinger. "Two New Flemish Paintings." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 36 (May 1941), pp. 109–11, ill., as by Joos van Cleve, produced between 1520–30; hypothesizes that our painting might originally have had wings; observes that the figure of Christ shows a striking resemblance to Joos's Salvator Mundi in the Louvre, Paris; notes that the soft modeling of the figures implies familiarity with Italian art, particularly that of Raphael and Leonardo; considers the mild quality of the scene and the rich draperies, all blown to the left, characteristically Renaissance in manner.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 137–38, ill., note that the painting follows the composition of German and Netherlandish pictures of this subject and that the mild figure of Christ harks back to Memling; observe that paintings of the Last Judgment were intended to decorate the courtrooms of town halls because of their moralistic implications; comment on the painting's poor state of preservation and its extensive restoration.

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 54.

Erik Larsen. Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York. Utrecht, 1960, p. 93.

Charles D. Cuttler. Northern Painting from Pucelle to Bruegel. New York, 1968, p. 434, ill., dates it 1520–25 and comments on its classicizing features: the putti, the figure types and the figure of Christ; implies the influence of Raphael's tapestry cartoons which arrived in Brussels in 1517.

Craig Harbison. The Last Judgment in Sixteenth Century Northern Europe. A Study of the Relation Between Art and the Reformation. PhD diss., Princeton University. New York, 1976, pp. 146–47, 276, no. 55, mentions it as an example of the limitation of heavenly intercessors and the focus on Christ that occured at times in Catholic works from the early 16th century.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Underdrawings in Paintings by Joos van Cleve at the Metropolitan Museum of Art." Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Ed. Roger van Schoute and Dominique Hollanders-Favart. Colloque 4, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1982, p. 161, notes that the underdrawing is imperceptible due to substantial, very old restorations.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 269, 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. 37, 58, 88, 321, 325, 366–68, no. 98, ill. (color), dates it about 1520–25; notes that the closest parallel to our composition is seen in Bernaert van Orley's altarpiece of the Last Judgment and the Seven Acts of Mercy of 1525 (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp); observes that the composition of the earthly and heavenly realms arranged in two grand semicircles is modeled on Raphael's Disputa for the Stanza della Segnatura (Vatican); believes the fluently composed Italianate nudes in the foreground were assimilated from drawings and prints after works by Raphael and his followers, most likely from Raphael's cartoons for a series of tapestries portraying the Acts of the Apostles, in Brussels by 1516; suggests that the omission of the Virgin and Saint John the Baptist as traditional intercessors is a significant iconographical change which may signify a Protestant interpretation; notes that the figures of the saved and the damned have been heavily restored.

John Oliver Hand. Joos van Cleve: The Complete Paintings. New Haven, 2004, p. 189, no. 113, fig. 161, dates it about 1525–30 and notes that the large number of male and female nudes would have been a challenge for Joos; observes that this picture "does not consistently remind one of Joos: the face of Saint Michael, for example, seems quite weak and divorced from his style (or else is heavily restored). On the other hand, one can see the presence of Joos's workshop in the face of Christ, and the pose and facial features of the man in the left foreground . . .".