Portrait of Erard de la Marck (1472-1538)

Entry

It seems likely that the two panels discussed in this entry, the ‘Portrait of Erard de la Marck’ and the companion panel ‘The Holy Family’ (SK-C-1701) were painted by Jan Vermeyen for Margaret of Austria between 1528 and 1530. There is some debate as to whether they originally formed a diptych, with the portrait on the left. They would appear to be too large for a hinged diptych, but it is certainly conceivable that they belonged together as separate panels.

Cardinal Erard de la Marck (1472-1538), Prince-Bishop of Liège, is shown half-length. Over his red cassock he is wearing a dark red, fur-lined cloak with wide sleeves, and he has a red biretta on his head. Unlike the red cassock and red biretta, which are part of a cardinal’s official garb (although the usual sapphire ring is missing), the cloak is a secular garment that is mainly seen in the portraits of scholars. Two angels are holding up a green (now dark brown) curtain behind him, and the one on the right is gesturing to the right.⁸

Erard de la Marck was made Prince-Bishop of Liège in 1505, and since 1518 he had been an ally and financial backer of Emperor Charles V, and the trusted adviser of Regent Margaret of Austria. He became a cardinal in 1521. A cruel inquisitor, he was known not just as a sworn enemy of Protestantism but also as a generous patron of the arts.⁹ By building a bishop’s palace in Liège (1526-34) and awarding scores of monumental commissions (for more than 300 tapestries, among others), he was responsible for a flowering of Renaissance art in the city.¹⁰

The Holy Family is depicted with a brooding Joseph on the right and God the Father on a terrestrial globe with musician angels on the left. The Virgin Mary with the nude, standing, muscular Christ Child in close-up recalls Jan Gossart’s ‘Virgin and Child’ in Madrid.¹¹ No direct model could be found for the two carnations in her hand, one red and one white. The thoughtful Joseph leaning forward behind the Virgin is based on a work by Raphael of c. 1518, also in Madrid, which also inspired Jan van Scorel. Vermeyen’s use of colour, his technique, the heavenly apparition of God the Father and the Child’s ‘contrapposto’ pose are all reminiscent of Scorel.¹²

‘The Holy Family’ is Vermeyen’s only signed painting. As Torringa acutely observed of the signature: ‘Rather than signing with the usual “pinxit”, Vermeyen chose the imperfect form of the verb, “pingebat”. In so doing he was following the example of Apelles, who signed this way as an expression of his modesty because he was never fully satisfied with his work’.¹³ Jan van Scorel also use the word in his signature on the ‘Frangipani triptych’ of 1519 in Obervellach.¹⁴ The letters ‘IC’ (in ligature) could stand for Vermeyen’s initials: I(ohannes) C(ornelisz).¹⁵

We assume that the two panels formed a diptych from the very outset, as described in the inventory of the possessions of Margaret of Austria (1480-1530). Between 1524 and 1530, several items were added to that inventory of 1523/24, including two panels of the same size by Jan Vermeyen: ‘Deux Tableaux Receuz de Maistre Jehan, le paintre, semblables; en l’ung est Nostre Dame et l’autre Monseigneur de Liège’ (Two paintings received from Master Jan, the painter, similar; in one is Our Lady, in the other Monsignor of Liège). In another version of this inventory the diptych is described as ‘Ung tableau, paint d’ung cousté d’une Nostre-Dame et de l’autre du cardinal de Liège, fermant à deux fuilletz.’ (A painting, painted with an Our Lady on one side and on the other the cardinal of Liège, two leaves closing).¹⁶ The second description makes it less likely that the diptych described in the inventory was a stationary one.

It emerges from a document of 1533 that Margaret of Austria commissioned two pairs of paintings with these subjects shortly before her death. In that year, Vermeyen wrote a letter to Margaret’s executors requesting overdue payment for the material costs of 19 paintings that he had delivered to her. They included ‘quatre grans tableaux a savoir: deux à la figure du cardinal de Liège et autres deux à l’ymage de Notre Dame [...], pour le bois, estoffes d’or, d’azur et autres’ (Four large paintings, namely two of the figure of the cardinal of Liège and the other two of the image of Our Lady [...], for the wood, gold, azurite and other materials). For this he charged ‘XX livres’.¹⁷ It is very conceivable that one of the pairs remained with Margaret as a diptych and was mentioned in her inventory, and that the other pair was given to Erard de la Marck, who may have ensured that it had a funerary function after his death.

The two paintings discussed here only resurfaced in two different places in Europe in the early decades of the 20th century, and were published as works by Jan Vermeyen. The man was identified as the Prince-Bishop of Liège and cardinal, Erard de la Marck, on the basis of the inscription on his etched bust-length portrait by Jan Vermeyen (fig. a), which is a faithful reversed copy of the painting. This made for a plausible attribution of the painted portrait to Vermeyen, and that was never called into question.¹⁸

‘The Holy Family’ appeared on the art market shortly before World War II, and in 1946 it became Dutch state property as a restituted work of art belonging to the Netherlands, and was given on loan to the Frans Hals Museum in 1948.

The first connection between the two panels and the documents associated with Margaret of Austria was made when the Rijksmuseum acquired the portrait in 1962. At the time, Haak ultimately rejected the possibility that the panels originally made up the diptych referred to in the documents: ‘once the two panels had been brought together it turned out that they were not sufficiently close to each other in colouring, composition or in style’.¹⁹

De la Marck’s pose, turned to the right, together with the angel on the right holding up the curtain and pointing to the right with its right hand, and the light that enters the portrait from the right, link the painting with the poses of the Holy Family turned to the left. The green curtain that extends into the panel with ‘The Holy Family’ supplies the visual connection between the two panels. The technical examination carried out in 2003/04 in preparation for the exhibition of diptychs held in Washington and Antwerp in 2006/07 and the associated conservation treatment of both paintings in 2006 provided a number of convincing arguments for the original connection between the panels. Not only are the painted surfaces nearly the same size, but the peach-coloured priming of both panels is the same, and it is not found anywhere else in Vermeyen’s oeuvre. Moreover, the paint structure of the curtain held up by the angels behind the cardinal, which extends into ‘The Holy Family’, is identical. In addition, the way in which both panels were deliberately disfigured with scratches, and later restored, are the same, which suggests that they have a common past.²⁰

One notable feature is the contrast between the warm palette of the portrait and the rather cool colours in ‘The Holy Family’. However, both the summary underdrawing and the painting technique of both panels are closely related. In addition, as well as having the same peach-coloured priming, there is a similar draughtsman-like handling of the details and the highlights. What is also noteworthy is the use of gold leaf in the red carnation. It was employed in a similar way in other works by Vermeyen (see SK-A-4820). This, as well as the azurite used for the Virgin’s robe, is mentioned in the 1533 list of expenses for materials for paintings fitting this description.

An attempt to interpret the iconography of this putative diptych runs into a number of unresolved questions. The main one is that the cardinal is on the left rather than the right wing, which would be his customary position in a devotional diptych according to the hierarchical principle of dextrality. One parallel for this unconventional positioning is Jan Gossart’s diptych with Jean Carondelet of 1517.²¹ Van der Velden has pointed out that breaching the principle of dextrality presupposes opening the diptych at a 90° angle so that it can be viewed at an angle, with the donors facing the subject of their devotion, but there appears to be no question of that in this particular case.²² To the left of the Christ Child in ‘The Holy Family’ is the heavenly apparition of God the Father with musician angels. The question is whether this is a reference to the Child’s divine origins or a vision of the Holy Family experienced by the cardinal, in the same way that the Virgin and Child appear to Chancellor Rolin in a painting by Van Eyck in the Louvre. In the context of a diptych, the standing Child with his two outstretched fingers in ‘The Holy Family’ appears to be blessing the cardinal.²³ The cardinal himself is not in an obviously devout or prayerful pose. One is tempted to see the eloquent gesture he is making with his hands in relation to the scene beside him as a dialogue with the divine apparition, but this would be unusual.²⁴

Both paintings can be placed quite early in Vermeyen’s oeuvre, between 1528 and 1530, and situated in Mechelen, partly on the evidence of the documents mentioned above and of the similarities to the works painted by Jan van Scorel after his return from Italy.²⁵

The prominence of the two angels holding up the curtain behind the cardinal has led to the suggestion that the portrait had a funerary connotation. Since the cardinal had installed his copper-gilt tomb in Liège’s St Lambertskerk in 1527, and in 1530 donated funds for an annual mass to be said in his memory, it is quite clear just how much care he took to ensure the salvation of his soul.²⁶ If one assumes that Margaret of Austria commissioned Jan Vermeyen to paint Erard de la Marck, it cannot be a posthumous portrait. It is conceivable, though, that Margaret presented the cardinal with the diptych, and that after his death it was installed on his tomb or in a burial chapel. The defacement of both panels shows that the diptych was in a public place during an iconoclastic episode - a chapel, or even perhaps the bishop’s palace. There was no iconoclasm in Liège in the 16th century, but in the late 18th century a great deal of damage was done to church property in the city.²⁷

Both paintings were severely damaged with a sharp implement. In the portrait the scratches are concentrated in the face, and the eyes were entirely obliterated. In ‘The Holy Family’ there are scratches in the figure of the Child, whose genitals were effaced, and in the Virgin’s face. Until 1938 there was a veil painted around the Child to conceal this damage.²⁸ It can be deduced from photographs in the RKD that the veil was removed between 1937 and 1938.

The recent conservation treatment of the portrait revealed just how heavily it had been overpainted. Leaving aside the damage to the face, in which the eyes had been painted anew, the cardinal’s biretta had been completely overpainted and the red sleeve of his cloak largely so.²⁹

There is a posthumous copy of the portrait in Liège, probably made in the 16th century, in which the angels are missing and to which the cardinal’s name and dates were added. The sleeves of the fur-trimmed cloak look a greenish blue, and the cassock is a transparent pink (discoloured red lake), but unfortunately the copy is not very accurate (fig. b).³⁰
JPFK