text:
Jacob Jordaens

Jacob (Jacques) Jordaens (19 May 1593 – 18 October 1678 ) was a Flemish painter, draughtsman and a designer of tapestries and prints. He was a prolific artist who created biblical, mythological, and allegorical compositions, genre scenes, landscapes, illustrations of Flemish sayings and portraits. After the death of Rubens and Anthony van Dyck, he became the leading Flemish Baroque painter of his time. Unlike those illustrious contemporaries he never travelled abroad to study the Antique and Italian painting and, except for a few short trips to locations elsewhere in the Low Countries, he resided in Antwerp his entire life. He also remained largely indifferent to Rubens and van Dyck's intellectual and courtly aspirations. This attitude was expressed in his art through a lack of idealistic treatment which contrasted with that of these contemporaries.

His principal patrons were the wealthy bourgeoisie and local churches. Only late in his career did he receive royal commissions, including from King Charles I of England, Queen Christina of Sweden and the stadtholder class of the Dutch Republic. As well as being a successful painter, he was a prominent designer of tapestries and prints.

While he is today mostly identified with his large-scale genre scenes such as The King Drinks (also called the Feast of the Bean King) and As the Old Sing, So Pipe the Young, his contemporary reputation was based as much on his numerous mythological, allegorical and biblical scenes. Often regarded as a pupil and epigone of Rubens, he was never recorded as a member of Rubens' workshop. He regularly worked as an independent collaborator of Rubens. The principal influence of Rubens on his work is the use of the chiaroscuro technique which Rubens himself had mastered through his study of Caravaggio's paintings during his stay in Italy. His main artistic influences, besides Rubens, were northern Italian painters such as Jacopo Bassano, Paolo Veronese, and Caravaggio.

Early years
Jacob Jordaens was born in Antwerp on 19 May 1593, the first of eleven children of the wealthy linen merchant Jacob Jordaens and Barbara van Wolschaten. Little is known about Jordaens' early education. It is likely that he received the advantages of the education usually provided for children of his social class as is demonstrated by his clear handwriting, competence in French and thorough knowledge of mythology. His familiarity with biblical subjects is further evidenced in his many religious paintings. His personal interest in the Bible was illustrated by his later conversion from Catholicism to Protestantism.

Like Rubens, he studied under Adam van Noort, who was his only teacher. He was registered in the local Guild of Saint Luke as a pupil of van Noort in the year 1607. During this time Jordaens lived in van Noort's house in the Everdijstraat where he became very close to the family. In 1615, after eight years of training with van Noort, he was accepted in the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke as a master "waterscilder" ('water painter'). It has been inferred from this that Jordaens initially painted tempera canvases, which in the 17th century served as substitutes for tapestries or were used as tapestry cartoons. No examples of his earliest tempera works are extant. It is not clear whether Jordaens actually painted such works as his master van Noort was not known to create such works.

Jordaens never made the traditional trip to Italy to study classical and Italian art. On 15 May 1616, he married his master's eldest daughter, Catharina van Noort. The couple had three children, Elizabeth, Jacob the younger, who became a painter, and Anna Catharina. The couple originally lived with or near Jordaens' father in law. In 1618, they bought two adjoining houses in the Hoogstraat, the street where Jordaens was born, but which were situated behind the house of the merchant Backx. His father in law later moved in with them. Jordaens became in 1616 a member of the 'Gilde van de Armenbus' (Guild of the Poor Box). This guild was a sort of insurance pool for artists with health problems. On 28 September 1621 he took on the position of dean of the Guild of Saint Luke. He accepted the position on condition that he would solely cover the expenses incurred during his tenure and not be responsible for the debts left by his predecessors. He held the position for only one year.

Career
Even before he was admitted as a master in the Guild he had started working for the free market. In the early period of his career he had contact with the workshop of Rubens in Antwerp and produced many mythological and allegorical compositions as well as biblical scenes. In 1628, he was, together with Rubens and van Dyck, commissioned by the Augustine order to each paint an altar in the Augustine church in Antwerp. Rubens painted a Virgin and Child Adored by Saints for the high altar while van Dyck contributed a St. Augustine in Ecstasy for the altar on the left. Jordaens painted the Martyrdom of St. Apollonia for the altar on the right (still in situ). Jordaens' rendition of the martyrdom of St. Apollonia, who jumped into a fire rather than denounce her faith in the 3rd century, is crowded and dramatic. It was likely Rubens who had been able to secure this commission. That Jordaens was also invited to contribute to this project shows the high regard in which he was already held at that early period of his career.

Jordaens was one of the artists invited to work on the decorations for the Joyous Entry into Antwerp of the new governor of the Habsburg Netherlands Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand in 1635. Rubens was in overall charge of this project. For this event, Jordaens made decorative paintings after designs by Rubens. In collaboration with Cornelis de Vos he completed the triumphal arch of Philip that was erected in the Huidenvetterstraat. It was one of the principal decorative elements in Rubens's designs. It has not been preserved as it was solely intended as a temporary decoration for the Joyous Entry.

Rubens received in 1636 a commission from the Spanish king Philip IV of Spain to create various mythological paintings to decorate the Torre de la Parada, a hunting lodge of the king near Madrid. The mythological scenes depicted in the series were largely based on the Metamorphoses of Ovid. Rubens realized this important commission with the assistance of a large number of Antwerp painters such as David Teniers the Younger, Cornelis de Vos, Jan Cossiers, Peter Snayers, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert, Theodoor van Thulden, Jan Boeckhorst, Peeter Symons, Jacob Peter Gowy and others, who worked after Rubens' modellos. Jordaens also played his part in this collaborative effort. Two works in the series attributed to Jordaens are Apollo and Pan (1637), made after a sketch by Rubens, and Vertummus and Pomona (1638). Further contributions which he may have made are the Fall of the Titans, the Marriage of Peleus and Thetis, and Cadmus Sowing the Dragons Teeth.

Royal patronage
Sometime during the years 1639–40, Jordaens was commissioned through Balthazar Gerbier, the English King Charles' agent in Brussels, and Cesare Alessandro Scaglia, a diplomat residing in Antwerp, to create a set of 22 paintings illustrating The Story of Cupid and Psyche. Van Dyck's Cupid and Psyche may also be related to this commission. While the works were to be displayed in the Queen's House at Greenwich upon completion, the patron and final location were unknown to Jordaens at the time he received the commission. When Jordaens submitted his initial designs to his intermediaries between himself and the English court, Gerbier was still attempting to convince the King that Rubens was a better choice for a project requiring a thorough skill in foreshortening. His efforts failed when Rubens died on 30 May 1640. With Rubens' death, Jordaens was given the sole responsibility for the entire commission. Efforts to complete the project continued slowly until in May 1641 all plans for The Story of Cupid and Psyche series were disrupted with the death of the diplomat Scaglia. The project was never completed and only eight paintings were delivered to the English Court. A dispute with Scaglia's heirs over payment for seven of these works continued into the next generation.

He also received a commission from Ruben's heirs to finish a painting of Hercules and Andromeda commissioned by Philip IV of Spain. On 21 April 1648 he received a commission to produce 35 large ceiling paintings for Queen Christina of Sweden's castle in Uppsala, Sweden. It is not clear whether Jordaens ever completed this commission or if the works ever reached their destination.

In 1651 he received one of his final large commissions. Amalia van Solms, widow of the Dutch Stadtholder Prince Frederick Henry of Orange invited various artists to decorate the manorial house Huis ten Bosch in The Hague which was built in 1645. For the Orange hall in the manor, Jordaens painted the Triumph of Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange, a large allegorical painting of Prince Frederick Henry's military successes.

In 1661, he was commissioned to paint large lunettes for the newly constructed Amsterdam Town Hall. Two of the lunettes deal with biblical subjects, (the David and Goliath and Samson defeats the Philistines) and two depict scenes from Dutch history (A Roman Camp under Attack by Night and Peace between the Romans and the Batavians).

A palatial residence in Antwerp
In 1633, his parents' estate was divided among himself, his brother Izaak and his sisters Anna, Magdalena and Elisabeth. From the estate he received his birth house "Het Paradijs". In 1634 he bought two more houses on the Verversrui. In 1639 Jordaens bought the large house "De Halle van Lier" or "Turnhoutsche Halle", at number 43 on the Hoogstraat, which was located in front of the houses in which he was then living. He had the three houses converted into a new large complex. He lived and worked there until his death in 1678. He designed the facades of the large inner court yard in the style of Rubens' house constructed two decades earlier. He decorated the house with sculptures, carpets and decorative furniture. For the two back rooms on the south he created ceiling paintings, including the series of The Signs of the Zodiac, twelve allegorical paintings of the signs of the Zodiac, painted around 1640. The series is now installed in the ceiling of the East Gallery of the Palais du Luxembourg in Paris.

In 1652 he painted for his 'showroom' (pronkkamer) in the south wing of his home nine ceiling pieces depicting the erotic history of the god of love Cupid and the royal daughter Psyche. According to the inventory left by Jordaens' grandchildren, these paintings were part of the sale of the house in 1708. The walls and doors of the room were also covered with paintings. This was the room where Jordaens received his guests and clients. The decoration of the room was intended to impress his visitors by his mastery through the depiction of the mythological tale of earthly and heavenly love, betrayal and fidelity. As the paintings from the Story of Cupid and Psyche were mounted on the ceiling, Jordaens used a lot of foreshortening in the pictures to create the illusion of depth. The perspective system was borrowed verbatim from Rubens' ceiling pieces in the Jesuit church in Antwerp. The paintings are viewed through an octagonal 'aperture' frame. The canvas entitled Psyche receives the cup of immortality on the Olympus is the centrepiece of the series. Other paintings in the series are Psyche's Father Questions the Oracle in the Temple of Apollo, the Love of Cupid and Psyche, the Oracle of Apollo, the Curiosity of Psyche, Cupid's Flight, Psyche Received by the Gods and two putti pieces. The original ceiling and door paintings have survived and are now in the collection of The Phoebus Foundation in Antwerp. The paintings on the walls are lost but some of the designs for them have been preserved.

Religion
In Antwerp, which was ruled by Catholic Spanish monarchs, the Protestant religion was forbidden although it should have been tolerated under the terms of the 1648 Peace of Münster which officially recognised the Dutch Republic. Towards the end of his lifetime Jordaens converted to Calvinism. He, his wife and daughter Elizabeth were members of the Calvinist congregation that had been established in Antwerp after the Peace of Münster despite the continued repression of Protestantism in the Habsburg Netherlands. His daughter Anna Catharina was likely also a member as she married a Jansenist. His religious affiliation did not stop him from accepting commissions to decorate Catholic churches. The schout of Antwerp fined Jordaens between 1651 and 1658 an amount of 200 pounds and 15 shillings for his 'scandalous' (i.e. heretical) writings.

Death and burial
In October 1678, Jordaens died of the mysterious sweating sickness ('zweetziekte' or 'polderkoorts' in Dutch), which, on the same day, also killed his unmarried daughter Elizabeth, who was living with him. They were buried together under one tombstone in the Protestant cemetery in Putte, a village just north of the Belgian border, where his wife Catharina had been put to rest upon her death in 1659.

One year after his death, Jordaens' son-in-law donated twenty-five Flemish pounds to the Camer van den Huysarmen ('Chamber of the Almoners') in Antwerp. He also donated Jordaens' painting The Washing and Anointing of the Body of Christ to the Maagdenhuis, an orphanage for girls in Antwerp. Apparently, these gifts were made in execution of instructions which Jacob Jordaens, who died intestate, had left behind. During his lifetime the kindness of Jordaens was recognized by those who knew him as is attested by various surviving documents.

The grandchildren of Jordaens moved to the Dutch Republic.

Workshop practice
Jordaens managed a large workshop as is attested by the large number of pupils that trained with him. A position in Jordaens' studio was highly desirable for young artists. The Guild records show he trained fifteen pupils between 1621 and 1667, the most famous of whom was Jan Boeckhorst. Six other persons are referred to as his pupils in court documents while they do not appear in the Guild records. It is therefore probable that he had more students than those recorded in the Guild records. Among his pupils were his son Jacob and his cousin Arnoldus Jordaens. Through his international reputation Jordaens attracted foreign artists to his studio as his pupils. After 1642 the Polish artist Aleksander Jan Tricius became his pupil and in 1645 Queen Christina of Sweden intended to send her protégé Georg Waldau (Joris Waldon) to his workshop, but this plan came to nothing due to the threat of war in Flanders.

Like Rubens and other artists at that time, Jordaens' workshop relied on assistants and pupils in the production of his paintings. Not many of these pupils went on to achieve fame themselves. His workshop practices occasionally caused him trouble. In 1648 one of his patrons, Martinus van Langenhoven, accused him of having sold him inauthentic paintings. Jordaens defended himself against the accusation with the argument that he had personally put the finishing touches on works executed by assistants in his workshop.

General
Jordaens was a very prolific painter, draftsman and designer of tapestries and prints who left a large oeuvre. He worked primarily, though not exclusively, for the rich Antwerp bourgeoisie. He received also a few commissions from aristocratic patrons. The many commissions, also from church patrons, he received after becoming the leading Flemish painter following Rubens' death resulted in a decline in the quality of his output due to an increased reliance on workshop assistance. Jordaens' paintings are populated with many figures, even though he lacked compositional talent. He combined high art with folk culture related elements. The popular tone of his genre painting sometimes borders on the caricature as he depicts his personages acting in a very effusive manner. His art has often been regarded as less idealized than that of Rubens and van Dyck. Nevertheless, it is now known that even though he did not read Latin or Greek and was thus unable to access the classical sources in their original language, he did rely on his knowledge of French to read classical literature in French translations. It is, for instance, known that for his Marsyas ill-treated by the Muses (on display at the Mauritshuis, The Hague), Jordaens relied on a French translation of the Eikones (Images) by Greek author Philostratus. This author of the third century A.D. wrote descriptions of 65 paintings which he had seen in a picture gallery in Naples. Jordaens's painting of Marsyas illustrates the painting entitled "Pan" in the Eikones.

An example of this combination of high art and populist tendencies is shown in his multiple versions of the fable of The Satyr and the Peasant. Based on the fable of the Satyr and the Peasant from Aesop's Fables, Jordaens used the fable to combine two of the painting genres in which he excelled: mythological painting and the peasant genre. His various interpretations of the subject and the many repetitions of these works by his workshop and followers popularized the theme which was then taken up by Flemish and Dutch painters such as Jan Cossiers and Jan Steen.

Influence of Rubens
Jordaens was greatly influenced by Rubens who occasionally employed him to reproduce his designs in a larger format. After the death of Rubens, Jordaens advanced to the position of one of the most prominent painters in Antwerp. Like Rubens, Jordaens relied on a warm palette, naturalism, and a mastery of chiaroscuro and tenebrism. Jordaens excelled in representations of the base character of humanity. His classically inspired peasant themes and large-scale moralistic genre scenes influenced Jan Steen. Although Jacob Jordaens did not specialize, he often repeated a theme based on a proverb that depicted a wide range of characters of a variety of ages, crowded in a festive scene around a banquet table. These humorous pieces have a sense of coarseness. While Jordaens drew upon Rubens' motifs throughout his career, his work is distinguished by its greater realism, a crowding of the surface of his compositions and a preference for the burlesque, even within the context of religious and mythological subjects.

In the final years of his career between 1652 and 1678 his creative and artistic abilities declined. He abandoned vibrant colours in favour of a grey-blue palette, accented at times with a dull brown and applied paint so thinly that the canvas could be seen. However, there were some exceptions to this such as the religious paintings he produced after he had converted to Protestantism and the Story of Cupid and Psyche that he created for his own house.

Subjects

In addition to being a well-known portrait painter, Jordaens painted biblical, mythological and allegorical subjects and landscapes and even etched a number of plates. Although primarily a history painter, he also painted illustrations of Flemish proverbs, such as As the Old Sing, So the Young Pipe, and depictions of Flemish festivals, for example The King Drinks, also called The Feast of the Bean King. Several of his works hint at a passion for animal painting. He often included a variety of animals, most likely drawn from life, including cows, horses, poultry, cats, dogs, and sheep. His life drawings of both animals and people were used and referenced throughout his life.

Throughout his career Jordaens had a penchant for returning to the same subjects resulting in various works reprising the same subject, sometimes in almost identical copies and in other instances as reworkings of the subject matter. Examples are the multiple versions of the fable of The Satyr and the Peasant discussed above and the multiple versions of the story of Mercury and Argus, the earliest version of which was painted circa 1620 (Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon). As a devout Christian he also painted various versions of the Adoration of the Shepherds of which he painted at least 7 versions. In the latter subject he usually grouped half-length figures closely together and cropped the scene so that the viewer would focus all attention on the figures. This compositional approach sought to intensify the narrative and accentuate the characters' expression.

As the Old Sing, So the Young Pipe
As the Old Sang, So the Young Pipe (c.1638–1640) is considered a companion to The King Drinks (also called The Feast of the Bean King) (Louvre, Paris). Both paintings are of a moralizing nature, have near identical measurements, and related styles. As the Old Sang, So the Young Pipe shows three generations of wealthy Antwerp burghers sitting around a table making music. Being a popular theme among Jordaens and his clients, several versions of this painting were created. In the version shown, Jordaens' father-in-law Adam van Noort is depicted as the old man. In this popular painting genre, elderly and middle-aged figures are always portrayed singing and creating music, as children "pipe" along.

The title is based on a popular proverb from the book Spiegel van den Ouden ende Nieuwen Tijdt, an Emblem book by Jacob Cats published in 1632. The Dutch proverb is Zo de ouden zongen, zo piepen de jongen, referring to the habit of birds to echo the pipe, or peeping chirp of their parents. Cats, a Calvinist, translated the proverb into a moralizing message; parents must be mindful of their actions and words, because children will copy their elders. The Dutch word for peep is just as in English, very close to the word pipe, and in this version, the bagpipe and flute pipe are used, but in some versions, the children are portrayed smoking a pipe, which even in those days was considered unhealthy for children.

Jan Steen also used a bagpipe and flute in his paintings on the same subject from around 1668 and 1670, even depicting the poem by Cats in the former of the two scenes. In his paintings however, Jordaens conveys this moralizing message as well as the idea that younger generations succeed their elders. The owl, considered the bird of the night, perched on the older woman's wicker chair, serves as a memento mori, a reminder of mortality.

Prometheus
Jordaens' 1640 painting Prometheus (depiction of the mythological tale of the titan Prometheus who had his liver pecked out by an eagle each day only to regenerate and begin the cycle anew the next day. Prometheus was punished for his audacity by Zeus for having given fire to man, not just in its physical form, but also in the fire of reason, which can be related to man's creativity in arts and sciences. Jordaens' depiction is very much likened to Rubens Prometheus. Jordaens' positioning of the eagle, the backwards, heroically nude bloodshot-eyed Prometheus as well as the depiction of the punishment and pain through spastic twisting and contorted movements, are also common themes in Rubens' version. In contrast with Rubens' version, Jordaens' depiction of Hermes arguable holds out the hope of release from the punishment; as in certain versions of the mythological story, Hermes helps obtain Prometheus gain freedom. Still, in the Prometheus Bound attributed to Aeschylus, Hermes treats Prometheus badly, which would undermine this optimistic interpretation. The depiction of the sacks of bones (used in another part of the myth to deceive Zeus) and a clay statue (which represents his creation of man) are also not part of Rubens' composition. Another notable difference is the look of pure agony in Jordaens' Prometheus while Rubens relies on the contortions of the body to convey the same feeling. Jordaens' Prometheus is a facial study, a prevalent subject found in the paintings of Jordaens and other artists of the period.

Tapestry designs
Jacob Jordaens' most significant body of work were the numerous designs he did for tapestries. As the most lucrative of the arts, tapestries were considered precious throughout the Renaissance and Baroque periods. These large wall hangings had begun to appear on the walls of wealthy European nobility in the fourteenth century. Following the success of the Brussels tapestries woven after the Raphael Cartoons, 16th and 17th-century patrons employed artists as tapestry designs; Jacob Jordaens, Peter Paul Rubens and Pietro Cortona flattered patrons allegorically in a manner that would identify them with famous historical or mythological figures, as a form of aristocratic self-promotion. Jordaens found that he was particularly successful in the tapestry ventures. He was especially motivated in this field and his perfected techniques and style earned him numerous commissions for series of tapestries. He was seen as one of the leading tapestry designers of the era.

Jordaens' process of tapestry creation included a preliminary drawing or sketch of the design. The design then is transferred to larger, more detailed oil sketch for the full-scale cartoon, which the weavers work from directly in weaving tapestry. Jordaens began planning a tapestry by executing a preparatory drawing coloured with water-soluble pigments. Although Jordaens did some sketches in oil, most were executed on paper or, later in his career, directly on canvas. Jordaens' tapestries were made for the aristocracy who placed such high value on them they would carry them with them while they travelled or went on military campaigns as a symbol of their status. Jordaens' scope of artistic representation was diverse, ranging from mythology, country life, to the history of Charlemagne. It has been noted that Jordaens' tapestry design incorporated densely organized crowds of figures, packed into a flat two-dimensional picture plane emphasizing surface patterns which resulted in a "woven picture". Just as he liked to crowd his genre paintings he carried forward to his tapestries.

Drawings
Maintaining trends in Flemish painting, Jordaens was a proponent of extending Rubens' and Van Dyck's "painterly" style of art to his exceptionally prolific body of preparatory drawings. Today, approximately 450 drawings are attributed to Jordaens. There is continuing scholarly debate on the accuracy of attributions of Flemish drawings to either Jordaens or Rubens, due to their similar style and oeuvre. Jordaens and his contemporaries were proponents of the Flemish trend towards making, expanding, and modifying preparatory drafts for larger paintings or to add to their visual vocabulary the classical artistic ideals. As a painter-draftsman, Jordaens often employed gouache and washes to his preparatory drawings.

Rubens had pioneered the trois crayons drawing technique, to achieve a naturalistic effect by using the colors black, red and white. He used this technique often in his portraits. While Jordaens relied on black chalk studies in his early career he later also adopted the trois crayons technique in his drawings from life. Jordaens was very thrifty with his paper and often reused pieces of paper. He often enlarged a drawing at once or later by transferring it to a larger sheet or adding strips of paper.

Prints
Jordaens was also engaged in the print publishing business as an organiser and designer of prints. Like Rubens and van Dyck before him, he realised the important role the print medium could play in distributing his work and raising his international fame. This was particularly the case as he was working in Antwerp, one of the most important printing centres of Europe at the time.

About 34 prints made or designed by Jordaens are currently known. The first print published after a design by Jordaens may have been The Satyr and the Peasant engraved by Lucas Vorsterman the Elder, a prominent printmaker who had been Rubens' dedicated engraver. The print was made after Jordaens' painting of the same name which is dated to about 1621 and is now in the Goteborg Museum. Although Vorsterman likely took the initiative to make the print, Jordaens is believed to have assisted in its production.

An important portion of prints made after Jordaens' designs were produced on his own initiative between c. 1635 and c. 1645. No painting or drawing connected with any of the 14 engravings in this group can be securely dated after 1645. They were engraved by a number of engravers active in Antwerp including Marinus Robyn van der Goes, Schelte a Bolswert, Paulus Pontius, Jacob Neefs, Pieter de Jode II and Nicolaes Lauwers. Almost all of the prints carry in the lower margin below the image, the name of Jordaens as inventor to the left and the name of the engraver to the right, the Latin words 'cum privilegio' in the centre, and a short explanation of the image in Latin verse. An additional group of six prints was published with publishers other than Jordaens. Jordaens designed a few of these prints at the request of the publisher Martinus van den Enden. This is the case with the Christ before Caiaphas engraved by Marinus Robyn van der Goes and the Christ before Pilate by Jacob Neefs. Pieter de Jode II's The Fool, the Woman and the Owl and Alexander Voet the Elder's Old Fool with a Cat were likely published without personal interference by Jordaens. Another print by Pieter de Jode II, a reproduction of a self-portrait by Jordaens was engraved for Joannes Meyssens' Images des diverses hommes, a publication with engraved portraits of many famous men published in 1649. Hendrick Snyers reproduced Jordaens' portrait of his father in law Adam van Noort for the same publication.

Some art historians have conjectured that seven etchings made after paintings by Jordaens had been etched by Jordaens himself as the early impressions of these prints only carry the inscription ‘Iac. Iordaens inventor 1652’ without a reference to the engraver. It has recently been suggested that these prints are more likely to be the work of the Antwerp printmaker Remoldus Eynhoudt who had trained under the same master as Jordaens. The grounds for the revised attribution is that the said prints do not show the typical features of Jordaens' style as displayed in his paintings and drawings but rather exhibit the characteristics and weaknesses of Eynhoudt's known oeuvre. They were undoubtedly produced in 1652, as the inscriptions state. A majority of them are related to painted or drawn compositions of Jordaens dating to the late 1640s or around 1650 such as the print  Mercury and Argus It is likely that Jordaens took the initiative to have these etchings made after his works.

Jordaens had a particularly close collaboration with the printmaker Marinus Robyn van der Goes who as a result created many prints after his works such as the Heracles and Cacus. Jordaens regularly prepared the prints after his own designs by creating drawings on paper, which are referred to as ‘modelletti’. They were executed in pen, ink and wash, heightened with body colour, often over a preparatory sketch in black chalk. In a few cases, the drawings were laid down on canvas to be sold as cabinet paintings.

title: Jacob Jordaens


text:
Talk:Unification Church antisemitism controversy

Early comments
Added a paragraph from a very recent sermon by Moon--I think we can agree that Moon's statements are Unification doctrine--and explained what is anti-Semitic about it. (I admit to not understanding what he means about Cain and Abel.) I put this at the end of the article, in part because it's the most recent data, and in part to avoid breaking up the flow of the earlier material. Vicki Rosenzweig 13:58 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your kind attention to this article. I myself am often baffled by the apparent contradiction between my church's pro-Israel stance and large proportion of Jewish members vs. its consistently adverse portrayal of Jewish people in regards to the crucifion. Some days I think "it's a mystery" as Catholics are often heard to say of the puzzling doctrine of the Trinity; other days I think I have it all reconciled... --Uncle Ed 14:08 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

This formulation is awkward: it makes it seem like Unificationists are denying something which is obviously true.

''Many Jews feel that certain teachings of the Unification Church are anti-Semitic. The head of the church, Sun Myung Moon, has said that the Holocaust was due to the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus, and has called on them to repent.

Church leaders have vigorously and repeatedly denied this accusation, even taking out full-page newspaper ads to call attention to the church's pro-Jewish and pro- Israeli stance. ''

A hasty reading of the above sentences gives the impression that church leaders deny (a) that Rev. Moon has said that Jews bear responsibility for the death of Jeses or called on Jews to repent or (b) that Rev. Moon has called on Jews to repent for Jesus' crucifixion.

Surely the article should say rather that church leaders deny the charge that the church's teachings are anti-Semitic.

If no one objects, then tomorrow or Monday I'll rearrange the sentences to clarify what is and is not being "denied". --Uncle Ed 22:31 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * I object. Sorry, Ed, the church's leaders are denying something that is manifestly true. If (hypothetically) person X asserted that blacks were inferior, and then denied being racist, we wouldn't be forced by NPOV to find a phrasing that glossed over the racism of that person's position. Vicki Rosenzweig

Apparently it's just as unclear and muddled as I thought. The rearrangement I propose is but
 * not to gloss over any teaching, statement, or position
 * to clarify and reaffirm the relevant positions, and
 * to state that church leaders continue to deny that the church is anti-Semitic

I think reporting a "denial", even in the face of "obvious damning evidence" is still neutral. For example, this morning's NY Daily News carried a couple of denials from the mother of the US soldier charged in this weekend's fragging incident. She denied that her son could possibly have done anything of the sort.

The point is that the News was being "neutral" in what I think is Jimbo's sense of the word by reporting her denial.

Anyway, I'll post the proposed text of any changes here on talk for your perusal. I want to get this one right, and despite thinking about it all weekend I'm still not sure what to say. In any case, I should probably write a comprehensive article on the UC's doctrine of indemnity. --Uncle Ed 17:54 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * If I understand what you plan, it seems plausible. Post your draft here, and we can hammer something out.

 * I thought you were going to post your proposed text here in talk first.

 * One immediate substantive question--and I realize that this may be deep theological waters from your viewpoint--is, if the Unification Church recognizes that it was Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus, why is Moon asking Jews, rather than Italians, to repent for this action? Vicki Rosenzweig

Sorry, I was planning to post a draft first; then I suddenly got inspired and just jumped into it. I have no objection to a pereremptory reversion.

And your question about Jews rather than Italians is an excellent one. Let me reflect a bit more, please... --Uncle Ed

RK, Vicki: I made some more changes, but as usual I worry intensely that I'm just making the article worse. Please make any corrections you see fit.

One thing I've neglected to mention is the concept of collective sin. Another point that probably needs emphasis is the role of John the Baptist. I mean, if it's a matter of "fault" and someone has to be "blamed" for the crucifixion then IMHO it's more John in particular than humanity in general who is responsible for the people's failure to support Jesus as the Messiah.

Jesus had indicated that John was in some way Elijh, whom Jews expected to appear before the Messiah appeared. When John denied being Elijah, this made Jesus look like a self-aggrandizing upstart and destroyed what little remaining credibility he had at the time.... --Uncle Ed 15:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A recent change to the article, from linking " Land of Israel" to linking "Land of Israel" has the effect of stating that the Unification Church says that Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza, and possibly also Jordan, is a refuge for Jews. Is this an accurate statement of church position?Vicki Rosenzweig 12:23, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't know exactly, but I'm fairly sure that Rev. Moon never called Jordan a "refuge for Jews". I think that he formulated his policy on Israel as a Jewish refuge (1) well in advance of the creation of Jordan out of Trans-Jordan, and (2) possibly also in advance of the creation of Trans-Jordan out of the Palestine.

 * Regardless of what he meant in his 1976 Statement on the Jews and Israel, I think it's safe to say that the UC DOES NOT have a policy one way or another on the question whether the West Bank & Gaza "belong" to Israel or are specific parts of a "haven for Jews". (It should be fairly obvious that to take a position on the specifics would just embroil the UC into partisanship.)

 * Anyway, we're probably more interested in his current position, which is

 * 1) that God is sad to see His children fighting
 * 2) that force won't bring a lasting peace
 * 3) that the conflicts in the Middle East require the cooperation of religious leaders to be solved

--Uncle Ed 13:51, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On another note, these explanatory words aren't part of the original text. I'm moving them here, lest someone consider them part of the long bulleted quote from Rev. Moon.

 * i.e., the Ten Commandments God gave to Moses according to the Bible

Possibly this phrase could go back into the article verbatim -- just not tacked onto the last bullet point? --Uncle Ed 14:12, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * And, calling Moon's words "medicine love" that doesn't necessarily taste good, Unificationist FAQ-master Damian Anderson has warned against watering down the message.

Damian Anderson is member of the Unification Church but does not speak for it. Let's stick to official statements. --Uncle Ed 22:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Repentance
The article says:

 * "To recreate Israel, the church and the state must become one as Cain and Abel. Instead they became one with Rome and captured and killed Jesus. They united with Rome. Who are the Jewish members here, raise your hands! Jewish people, you have to repent. Jesus was the King of Israel. Through the principle of indemnity Hitler killed 6 million Jews. That is why. God could not prevent Satan from doing that because Israel killed the True Parents. Even now, you have to determine that you will repent and follow and become one with Christianity through Rev. Moon."

 * In this passage, Moon clearly calls on Jews to repent and join his movement, if not his church per se.

Is it supposed to be self-evident that calling Jews to repentance is anti-Semitic? Was Moses anti-Semitic when he punished the worshippers of the Golden Calf by Mt. Sinai? Were Isaiah and Jeremiah anti-Semitic?

Is the last book in the Old Testament anti-Semitic?

 * "He will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse." (Malachi 4:6)

I'm not deleting the sentence from the article, but I wish someone would tell me WHO SAYS that asking someone to repent for their role in the crucifixion is anti-Semitic. --Uncle Ed 22:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * By saying the Jews must repent, he is saying the Jews CAUSED the crucifixion. It is that implied statement that causes people to label him as anti-Semetic. Not only does he blame the Jews for something that happened 2000 years ago, that the Jews in all probability did not commit, but this same act (Killing Jesus) was used as the justification to rape and murder countless Jews over the centuries. Don't try to compare it to Moses and the Golden Calf. In the Bible Moses was a a prophet and leader of the Jews, and the sin happened then, of course it was his responsibility. To the Jews at least, Moon is a nobody, and they do not recognize the sin he accuses them of. If you still cannot see how Moon could be construed as anti-Semetic, you are hopeless.70.111.0.17 03:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Help!
This article is wordy and repetitive. I want to rewrite it completely, but:

 * I don't really know enough about why Jews think the church is anti-Semitic.
 * Since I'm a member of the church, I might (unconsciously) harbor bias in favor of the church and thus paint too favorable picture of its views.

So would Vicky or Rhmermen or RK like to work on this? --Uncle Ed 15:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah...could we possibly just incorporate this into the anti-semitism article? Otherwise, this could set an ugly precedent...I can see all of the proposals for Judaism and racism articles now... --Yodamace1 21:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, just a quick 2cents worth: one part said that the UC was "anti-semitic" for mentioning that the ancient Israelites were "faithless". First of all, "faithless" is a broad and sweeping term, especially when it's taken out of context, the context being that it is stated in the Bible, many times that the ancient Israelites were indeed faithless. (Jeremiah 3, Exodus 32, Numbers 14 (especially Num 14:33) as examples)
 * LN - A Jewish member of the UC. June 14, 2006

JDL
I am taking them out of the article, which should be about serious concerns not the opinion of an extremist group. Steve Dufour 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Deicide
I feel this article is giving too much weight to a less-accepted position --- that assigning blame for Jesus's death to the Jews *may not be* antisemitic. Regardless of the intent of the Unification Church on this point, charges of deicide are widely held to be a cornerstone of antisemitism, and have historically used to justify all sorts of horrendous actions. See here. Also see the section on Repudiation; this has been enough of a problem that the Lutheran Church, and to a lesser extent, the Catholic Church, have taken a position. SheRay7 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Good points. Another issue that could be brought up is the UC's ties to Islam, including the Nation of Islam, despite the pro-Isreal stance of the church owned Washington Times which doesn't always represent Moon's point of view. Borock (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pros and cons on the issue

 * Moon (speaking in 1977):
 * Recently a major Jewish magazine proclaimed that after long research and investigation they had come to the conclusion that I was not ever anti-Semitic. A Roman Catholic magazine recently published the opinion that the Unification Church is part of the Christian heritage and is not heretical.

Can someone help me identify that major Jewish magazine?

Also, we know the conclusions drawn from some rabbi's reading of the Divine Principle (DP), but can we get his analysis? I'd like to see a few dozen passages that he regarded as anti-semitic, and (for at least a few representative passages) his precise chain of reasoning regarding them. For example, does DP say that that Jewish people were more ungodly than the average person of the Old Testament age? Or does it say that the Jewish people were more religious and closer to God than average, while also taking them to task for some specific failings?

In particular, does "anti-semitism" entail any broad criticism of Jews or Jewish life? Or is it okay to point out Jewish moral/ethical failings provided that one places these into the context of humanity's general lapses? For example, the New Testament says, "None is righteous, no not one." Does this make Christan scriptures anti-human? Or does it just uphold a terribly high standard?

Here's another way to approach it. I'm going to call this the "feet of clay" effect. Reverend Moon called Martin Luther King Jr. the 20th century American he admired most. On the other hand, the Unification Church calls adultery "the greatest sin", and it is fairly well known that King committed adultery. Putting 2 and 2 together, what does this mean about the UC position on Dr. King? Are we exalting him or condemning him? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed. I think the article is heading towards saying that the DP has some passages that have been criticized as antisemitic but that church members are not hostile towards Jewish people. I think this is the information people are looking for if they have questions about this issue. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The value of censure
Are criticism, rebukes and censure always or automatically antisemitic? According to the Jewish Encyclopedia Amos "disturbed the national self-complacency by citing and denouncing the sins of the people and of their civil and religious rulers, declaring that precisely because God had chosen them to be His own would He punish them for their iniquity. He rebuked their oppression of the poor, their greed, their dishonesty, as sins against Yhwh Himself; assured them that their excessive religiousness would not save them in the day of their deserved punishment; that, as far as judgment was concerned, they stood no better with Him than did the Ethiopians, or the Arameans, or the Philistines."

Or is it only antisemitic when an outsider makes such a sweeping critical statement? In other words, does our classification of a remark as "antisemitic" depend on who makes the statement?
 * Yes: Amos can criticize the ancient Israelites, and no one considers him anti-semitic but actually a good prophet conveying a valuable divine message. But since Rev. Moon is not Jewish, he may make similar criticisms.
 * No: Anyone can be a prophet and convey divine warnings, even to people of other times and places.

Which is it? Or, specifically, which standard of antisemitism do Rev. Moon's opponents such as Rabbi Rudin use? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not go by the standards set by Conservapedia? By their implicit definitions, Moon is certainly anti-semitic. 76.105.223.232 (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi Ed. If all the controversy was taken out of the article there would be no article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep roaming around the wiki on this one, but it seems to be a cross-cutting issue, and also possibly an elephant in the room.

Allen Z. Hertz, formerly a senior advisor in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet, wrote:
 * "criticizing Israel is not necessarily Anti-Semitic ..."
 * "Modern Anti-Semitism includes persistently targeting Jews and/or Israel and persistently applying to Jews and/or Israel a more exigent standard than applied to other Peoples and countries."

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote:
 * "CRITICIZING Israel doesn't make you anti-Semitic: If it's been said once, it's been said a thousand times."
 * "... the line that separates legitimate disapproval of Israel from anti-Semitism may not always be obvious."
 * "those who demonize and delegitimize Israel, who say the world would be better off without it, who hold it to standards of perfection no other country is held to, who extol or commiserate with its mortal enemies, who liken it to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, who make it the scapegoat not only for crimes it hasn't committed, but for those of which it is a victim - yes, such people are anti-Semitic, whether they acknowledge it or not."

Both men seem to be saying that it's not the fact of criticizing, but the standard by which one criticizes that defines "anti-Semitism".

(As an aside, I seem to have seen quite a lot of double standard criticism used in political and ideological discussions. When you want to "get" someone, you say he violated a standard and therefore deserves condemnation. It's obviously hypocritical to issue this sort of condemnation selectively, giving yourself or your group or anyone in some category the special favor of not judging them as harshly. It's hypocritical when you don't apply the standard equally to all parties.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination, bias and double standards
The essence of anti-semitism is holding Jews or Israel to a higher standard than other religious or national groups. Anyone who treats them like this is guilty of antisemitism. So, if indeed Rev. Moon were to hold Jews or Israel to higher standard of "faithfulness" or some such, then he would by definition be engaging in antisemitism.

The question is, as Robert McAfee Brown asks, "Can Christians criticize the state of Israel without being perceived as anti-Semitic?" Specifically, is it anti-Semitic for one person to make a criticism but not anti-Semitic for another person to make the same criticism? And if so, who say so?

Is there a clear statement from any verifiable and notable source that it's not what is said but who says it, that determines whether a given criticism is anti-Semitic? Or are opponents of Rev. Moon simply engaging in the same sort of double standard criticism which they condemn as anti-Semitic when they are the targets? (And if so, who has put 2 and 2 together in this way to get the obvious answer, if we contributors aren't allowed to say that 2+2=4?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, per WP:NOR, instead of constructing your own arguments, please stick to arguments about or statements on the subject made reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I thought that we're allowed to think aloud on article talk pages. In the old days, we would frequently discuss what we supposed the objective truth was before going off-site to do the research, figuring it helps to know what you're looking for.

 * I'll be sure not to let my personal reasoning affect my writing. You'll let me know if my pro-Moon bias worms its way into the article, won't you? (I'll gladly return the favor to anyone with anti-moon bias.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed. It's difficult to define what "objective truth" is in most areas, including this. WP:NOTAFORUM is also relevant for Talk: pages. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Washington Times = pro-Israel?
I think it would be fair to include the information that the church owned Washington Times has been called pro-Israel (by reliable sources) in this article, even if some of the other material is left out. I am a church member, BTW, and I certainly don't hate Jewish people. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you don't, Steve. In accord with WP:NOR, do any of the sources in the material you want to add discuss the Unification Church and antisemitism? Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They say the Washington Times (owned by the church) is pro-Israel. So that is the other side of the controversy.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's related to the topic, Unification Church antisemitism controversy. The info you added might be relevant to either Unification Church or Washington Times, but not this article. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What "other side of the controversy", Steve? Do the sources discuss the controversy at all? From what I can tell, they don't. Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The title of the article says there is a controversy. That generally means there are two sides. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, two sides at least. But what does that Washington Times material have to do with this article? I remind you that this article is about The Unification Church and antisemitism, not the Washington Times or Israel. Please explain how they are related, using sources that indicate a relationship between the two. Jayjg (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Unfication Church supports the Washington Times, the Washington Times supports the Israeli people, the Israeli people are mostly Jewish; therefore the Unifcation Church is in favor of Jewish people. Antisemitism means being against the Jewish people; therefore this is evidence of non-antisemitism by the Unification Church.  The sources cited were the largest English language newspaper in the Arab world and a Jewish newspaper in Washington D.C. Both said the editorial policy of the Washington Times was generally pro-Israel. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting argument you've made there, Steve. Are there any reliable sources that make that same argument? Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Jay was questioning the degree to which the Washington Times is influenced by its patron. It's common knowledge that Rev. Moon founded the paper, and fairly well known that he's propped it up with church funds. What might be at issue in some minds is whether "he who pays the piper calls the tune" - i.e., whether church financial backing entails editorial control. If so, then we can say that the "Moonie paper" is pro-Israel, so obviously the church isn't anti-semitic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Ed, I'm questioning whether any reliable sources actually make the argument that Steve is making. If not, then it's just original research. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment—I second Jayjg's fully reasonable request for reliable sources. The argument made above by Steve Dufour indeed does not appear logical. A supports B that supports C that supports D, therefore A supports D? Says who? See WP:NOR. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The editorial in Al-Ahram seems to be making that point. "The Washington Times is a mouthpiece for the ultra conservative Republican right, unquestioning supporters of Israel's Likud government. The newspaper is owned by Sun Myung Moon, originally a native of North Korea and head of the Unification Church, whose ultra-right leanings make him a ready ally for Netanyahu. Whether or not Netanyahu is personally acquainted with Moon is unclear, though there is no doubt that he has established close friendships with several staff members on The Washington Times, whose editorial policy is rabidly anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and pro-Israel."

Steve Dufour (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite certain I see nothing about antisemitism in that quote, much less a claim that the Unification Church is not antisemitic. Could you please provide a quote that actually discusses the Unification Church and antisemitism? That is, after all, the topic of this article. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not expect an Arab newspaper to use the word "antisemitism." I also think it would be hard to be both "rabidly pro-Israel" and antisemitic. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I would not expect Wikipedia to use information that doesn't appear in reliable third-party sources. As for the other argument, I'm not sure you are aware of the background for why Evangelists in the US support Israel. Without going into too much detail, you might want to note this editorial in the generally anti-Israel WRMEA that asserts that it is possible to be pro-Israel and antisemitic. If you need further explanation of the background, feel free to contact me personally. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These same "Evangelists" are also bitter foes of the Unification Church, and I could add some have been found to disregard the Ninth Commandment at times. Anyway I think the issue of current anti-Jewish terrorism is a much bigger issue in 2009 than theological theories about the Jews' status as God's chosen people and the causes of their suffering.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve, are you assuming that since the WT is pro-Israel, this disproves the notion that its sponsor is antisemitic? If so, then I'd have to agree (editorially) with Jay: it's not for us to draw conclusions like this, no matter how obvious and sensible they are. Accusations of antisemitism or racism are often made hypocritically or on no basis whatever, and Wikipedia has declined the role of evaluating such accusations.

As suggested above, please poke around and see if you can find someone who has put 2 and 2 together the same way as you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. And Steve, until you find such sources, would you mind removing the material? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. That's fair enough. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 * The stance that a newspaper takes toward a major country is of general interest. Does the article on the Washington Times have a "stance on Israel" section?

 * Some newspapers, I suppose, try at all times to be entire objective. But I reckon that most American newspapers actually have editorial policies which favor various political, social and other causes - in accordance with the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of the press - as opposed to some mandated requirement to be "neutral" or to support whatever governing party is currently in power. For example, the New York Times magnified the "human rights abuses" which followed the 1973 Chile coup (3,000 civilians disappeared) while downplaying those of Cambodia around the same time (over 1,000,000 civilians executed). --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The founder's views on the Holocaust
Here is a quotation which may be familiar to writers studying this matter:

 * The Unification Movement categorically condemns anti- Semitism, the most hideous, abject and cruel form of hatred. We regard the murder of six million Jews in Europe the result of political short-sightedness and lack of moral responsibility on the part of Germany's political and religious leaders, and statesmen from among other nations, in the period between the Two World Wars.
 * Ignoring the basic teachings of the Scriptures, they acted too late to block Hitler's ascent to power, they postponed the action for his downfall, and they did nothing to rescue the victims who were the captives of his satanic plans and designs. (Statement On Jews And Israel December 1976 )

Would I be right in concluding (or wrong in violating WP:OR) that Rev. Moon is hereby calling the Holocaust satanic - as opposed to saying that it was God's will? Look at it this way: "We regard the murder of six million Jews in Europe [as being due to Hitler's] satanic plans and designs." (5 words added for clarification)

Am I in fact clarifying, or am I imputing meaning that is not there? You decide.

In the very next sentence, it is made clear that the implementation of the Final Solution was "a Cain-inspired action". If you know anything about UC theology regarding Cain and Abel, you can recognize that Father Moon was labeling the Nazi extermination program as bad. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to attempt to draw conclusions from the sayings of religious leaders beyond what they have actually said. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. – Juliancolton  | Talk 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unification Church antisemitism controversy → Divine Principle antisemitism controversy —Due to recent changes, the article is now only about passages in the Divine Principle that have been called antisemitic. There is nothing about pro or anti-Jewish feelings by church members. I suggest that the article be retitled "Divine Principle antisemitism controversy." Steve Dufour (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To begin with, the term "Divine Principle" can mean many things; if anything, in order to disambiguiate you should be recommending a move to "Unification Church's Divine Principle antisemitism controversy". In addition, Sandon doesn't talk solely about the Unification Church's Divine Principle, and Fehrer doesn't refer to it at all. This move would be an unwarranted narrowing of the scope of the article. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment. I think the article should be merged into the main article. It's absurd that major allegations have only a small paragraph and no article, and this one with exactly two allegations of misstatements has a whole article. Totally WP:UNDUE [since its creation for any number of reasons which I won't bother to speculate upon]. (COI Note: no, I'm not a supporter of any of the bevy of patriarchal religions.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Jayjg. We need to expand the article, not narrow its focus. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Support merge rather than move, per Carolmooredc. There's insufficient here to merit a separate article at this stage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment Material has been added to the article so that its scope is larger. If both sides of the "controversy" are presented then I don't have a problem with the present title anymore. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Rebuttal: the only "material has been added" has been a bunch of quotes of primary-source accusations and (often self-published) denials. This does not make for an encyclopaedic article. WP:SECONDARY sources are needed if an encyclopaedic article is to be formed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that the excessive quoting has been trimmed out, what remains could quite easily be accommodated as a section in the Unification Church article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment: neither current nor proposed title is accurate, as there is no evidence of a singular cohesive "controversy" -- only of a major accusation in the late 70s (with a few supports/rebuttals in the following couple of years) and some completely unrelated accusations (one of antisemitism, one of being pro-Israel) a couple of decades later. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unencyclopaedic quotefarm
No Steve, it is not necessary to "present both sides by quotes" from WP:PRIMARY sources ad nauseam. The correct way to present a "controversy" is by WP:SECONDARY sources. I am restoring the template.

And the Moon quote fails WP:SELFPUB #1 "unduly self-serving". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good edits, thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Individual's self-published explanations of their words/acts are allowed per WP:NPOV and are not self-serving unless WP:UNDUE. One little sentence (just added by someone else) mentioning Rev. Moon's relevant comments during the time period in question would not be undue. And it gives people enough information to judge for themselves, which is our main job. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * (i) This is NOT an 'explanation of their words/acts' -- it was made in Jan 1976, approx 10 months before the Rudin report was released. (ii) Whether a statement is "self-serving" is unrelated to whether it is given WP:UNDUE weight -- the former is a quality of the self-published source itself -- the latter of its treatment by WP editors. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (iii) The piece was WP:SELFPUB by Mose not Moon, so #2 "it does not involve claims about third parties" is violated -- Mose is making claims about Moon. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (iv) I would further note that the Mose piece makes no mention of Rudin or the American Jewish Committee. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (v) Contrary to this edit summary, there is no evidence that the quotation Mose makes of Moon is the "recent statements by Rev. Moon in which he said that he 'categorically condemns anti Semitism and anti-Christian attitudes'" mentioned in the NYT piece. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Ahram sentence
I can't understand what the Al-Ahram sentence has to do with this article. The attached link doesn't discuss antisemitism at all. Can someone explain what it is doing in this article, as opposed to Unification Church political activities (if someone really feels this opinion is worth noting)? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Most people think "antisemitic" means advocating harm to the Jewish people. A quote which says the opposite should be part of the "controversy." Steve Dufour (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. No informed person in their right mind thinks that the Rev. Moon or church members hate or intend harm to Jewish people. And no honest person has said so.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We've been through this before, Steve, up here. Are there any reliable sources that tie this statement to the topic of this article? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead and remove the paragraph. I'm sure I can find a better source that comments on the UC's generally pro-Jewish attitude. WP:SYN forbids me from pointing out the number of Jewish scholars taking part in church activities and expressing support of the church, the Unification Theological Seminary hiring rabbis to teach the Bible (something an antisemitic group would probably not do), the number of well-known Jewish journalists who have written for the Washington Times, etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Steve. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * It looks like a case of Steve (here - and me elsewhere) forgetting editorial standards in our haste to point out the "obvious mistake" in charges of UC antisemitism. Perhaps in other arenas of scholarship arrant nonsense is simply omitted; or maybe we just wish it would be.

 * The problem here is that rabbis and groups have analyzed Divine Principle, found passages which appear to them antisemitic, and have condemned the church on account of them. This is bewildering, because unlike our stance on communism - which is clearly anti-communist and has therefore attracted almost exclusively objections from pro-communists who know that we are anti-communist - here we are in the ironic position of feeling that we are not "anti-semitic" at all, yet we attract opposition from people who think we are.

 * Perhaps some mental gymnastics will be required to write about all this properly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and primary sources
If the article is about a "controversy" then both sides need to be presented, including pro-Jewish quotes from UC sources. And everything in the article is from people taking sides in the "controversy", there is no secondary coverage.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, Steve, the arguments that need to be presented are those that reliable secondary sources make, not arguments invented by Wikipedia editors. The "primary sources" are the statements by Unification Church on Jews. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then both statements saying that the church is antisemitic and statements saying that it is pro-Jewish should be admitted to the article.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * If "there is no secondary coverage", then there shouldn't be an article. Also, although a pro-Israel/antisemetic position is inconsistent, it is hardly unknown in conservative Protestant circles. Prejudices are generally not the product of logic, so are quite frequently inconsistent or even incoherent. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has said that UC members, or Rev. Moon, are prejudiced against Jewish people, just that our understanding of religious history is incorrect according to modern sensitivities.Steve Dufour (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * "More troubling is the unmistakable anti-semitism I heard expressed by a highly placed and veteran Korean Moonist…" = "UC member … prejudiced against Jewish people" <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I did say "members." Most UC members are very pro-Jewish, as is Rev. Moon. This is understood by informed Jewish people. Why don't you write to your Senator or congressperson and ask him or her what he or she thinks about the alleged "antisemitism" of the UC?Steve Dufour (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Given how tight-knit and authoritarian the UC is, I'd be surprised if this "highly placed and veteran Korean Moonist"'s prejudices aren't held by others. I would suspect that many "informed Jewish people" would have problems with Moon's Holocaust=indemnity explanation. Why on earth would you think that I would have a "Senator or congressperson"? Most people in the world don't. And why would you think that the UC is even on my political representative's radar? Outside the US, Korea and Japan, the UC has a negligible presence. Get over yourself and your ethnocentricism. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry. Most people in the United States, and certainly in Washington, are well aware of the UC's pro-Jewish attitude.Steve Dufour (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * As I said above, it is far from unknown for a politically-"pro-Jewish" (generally approximately equivalent to a pro-Israel) position to be simultaneously held with personal/cultural antisemitic prejudices. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * If I was to decide based only on self-interest I think I would choose to be thought anti-Jewish, 'cause I am fairly confident that the Jews ain't going to kill me.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The debate above has departed from its proper topic, i.e., (A) questions about how to write the article. It looks more like (B) a debate amongst contributors about whether the church, its founder and/or its members are antisemitic. I suggest we return to the question of how to describe the church's official position (particularly as expressed by the founder and the main theology book), along with the perennially interesting dispute between church boosters and opponents other than we 3 or 4 contributors over which aspects of church teachings, church policy or member attitudes qualify as antisemetic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Maybe the title of the article should be changed to "American Jewish Committee news conference on the Divine Principle" since that seems to be the main topic now. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Supersessionism and Zionism
I removed these from the "see also" list. The UC does not strictly teach supersessionism since we believe that Christianity itself misunderstands Jesus' teachings and that faithful Christians are co-sufferers along with Jews, and with God Himself (a point that some Chistians as well as Muslims also find offensive BTW.) As for Zionism, WP's article defines it as support for the creation of a Jewish state. Since the UC was founded, and the DP written, after the creation of Israel this has nothing to do with us.Steve Dufour (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article
Here's an interesting article, not sure if it would count as a reliable source however. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

AJC website
I just checked the AJC website and found no mention of the UC or Rev. Moon. Hmmm. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

War in Heaven
I just added info on the Jewish Defense League's "declaration of war" against Rev. Moon. This must have been one of the shortest spritual/ideological wars in history. I took part in an earlier skirmish when I was going door to door in a Jewish neighborhood in LA handing out invitations to a speech by Rev. Moon. A JDL member threatened me and I told him that I wasn't going to stop. I then pointed out that the church was actively protesting Soviet persecution of Jews. He couldn't argue with that and didn't bother me anymore.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League
This material appears to be both irrelevant & WP:UNDUE, as: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The topic of the article is "Unification Church antisemitism" not 'Jewish anti-Unificationism'
 * 2) The Jewish Defense League is on the "violent, extremist and terrorist"/"hate group" fringe of Jewish thought, and thus unrepresentative of Jewish thought.

 * The AJC press conference is also unrepresentative of Jewish thought. However thank you for the additional information you added on the JDL. I certainly didn't intend to imply that they in any way represented all Jews. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This article IS NOT ABOUT "JEWISH THOUGHT! It is about "Unification Church antisemitism controversy". This material is therefore off-topic.
 * 2) To claim that the JDL is "representative of Jewish thought" is idiotic! So the Jewish lunatic fringe once mouthed off against the UC. They probably did so against anybody they thought was encroaching on what they considered to be 'their turf' -- the ADL chronology of their hooliganism is certainly long enough. Lacking any evidence that they actually carried through, it should not be given WP:UNDUE weight even in an article it is on-topic for.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Rogier van der Weyden

Rogier van der Weyden or Roger de la Pasture (1399 or 1400 – 18 June 1464) was an early Netherlandish painter whose surviving works consist mainly of religious triptychs, altarpieces, and commissioned single and diptych portraits. He was highly successful in his lifetime; his paintings were exported to Italy and Spain, and he received commissions from, amongst others, Philip the Good, Netherlandish nobility, and foreign princes. By the latter half of the 15th century, he had eclipsed Jan van Eyck in popularity. However his fame lasted only until the 17th century, and largely due to changing taste, he was almost totally forgotten by the mid-18th century. His reputation was slowly rebuilt during the 200 years that followed; today he is known, with Robert Campin and van Eyck, as the third (by birth date) of the three great Early Flemish artists (Vlaamse Primitieven or "Flemish Primitives"), and widely as the most influential Northern painter of the 15th century.

Very few details of van der Weyden's life are known. The few facts we know come from fragmentary civic records. Yet the attribution of paintings now associated to him is widely accepted, partly on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but primarily on the stylistic evidence of a number of paintings by an innovative master.

Van der Weyden worked from life models, and details were closely observed. Yet he often idealised certain elements of his models' facial features, who were typically statuesque, especially in his triptychs. All of his forms are rendered with rich, warm colourisation and a sympathetic expression, while he is known for his expressive pathos and naturalism. His portraits tend to be half length and half profile, and he is as sympathetic here as in his religious triptychs. Van der Weyden used an unusually broad range of colours and varied tones; in his finest work the same tone is not repeated in any other area of the canvas, so even the whites are varied.

Early life and apprenticeship
Due to the loss of archives in 1695 and again in 1940, there are few certain facts of van der Weyden's life. Rogelet de le Pasture (Roger of the Pasture) was born in Tournai (in present-day Belgium) in 1399 or 1400. His parents were Henri de le Pasture and Agnes de Watrélos. The Pasture family had earlier settled in the city of Tournai where Rogier's father worked as a maître-coutelier (knife manufacturer).

In 1426, Rogier married Elisabeth, the daughter of a Brussels shoemaker, Jan Goffaert and his wife Cathelyne van Stockem. Rogier and Elisabeth had four children, the first being Cornelius (b. 1427), who became a Carthusian monk and Margaretha, born in 1432. By 21 October 1435, the family had settled in Brussels, where the two younger children were born: Pieter in 1437 and Jan in 1438. These latter two would go on to become respectively a painter and a goldsmith. On moving to Brussels, Rogier began using the Flemish version of his name: "Rogier van der Weyden".

From 2 March 1436 onward, Rogier held the title of 'painter to the town of Brussels' (stadsschilder), a very prestigious post since Brussels was at that time the most important residence of the splendid court of the Dukes of Burgundy.

Little is known about Rogier's training as a painter. The archival sources from Tournai were completely destroyed during World War II, but had been partly transcribed in the 19th and early 20th century. The sources on his early life are confusing and have led to different interpretations by scholars. It is known that the city council of Tournai offered eight pitchers of wine in honour of a certain 'Maistre Rogier de le Pasture' on 17 November 1426.

However, on 5 March of the following year, the records of the painters' guild show a "Rogelet de le Pasture" entered the workshop of Robert Campin together with Jacques Daret. Records show that de le Pasture was already established as a painter. Only five years later, on the first of August 1432, de le Pasture obtained the title of a "Master" (Maistre) painter.

His later entry into apprenticeship might be explained by the fact that during the 1420s the city of Tournai was in crisis and as a result the guilds were not functioning normally. The late apprenticeship may have been a legal formality. Also Jacques Daret was then in his twenties and had been living and working in Campin's household for at least a decade. It is possible that Rogier obtained an academic title (Master) before he became a painter and that he was awarded the wine of honour on the occasion of his graduation. The sophisticated and learned iconographical and compositional qualities of the paintings attributed to him are sometimes used as an argument in favour of this supposition.

The social and intellectual status of Rogier in his later life surpassed that of a mere craftsman at that time. In general, the close stylistic link between the documented works of Jacques Daret and the paintings attributed to Robert Campin and van der Weyden are the main arguments to consider Rogier van der Weyden as a pupil of Campin.

Acclaim in Brussels
The final mention of Rogier de la Pasture in the financial records of Tournai, on 21 October 1435, lists him as demeurrant à Brouxielles ("living in Brussels"). At the same time, the first mention of Rogier de Weyden places him as the official painter of Brussels. It is this fact that puts de la Pasture and van der Weyden as one and the same painter. The post of city painter was created especially for Van der Weyden and was meant to lapse on his death. It was linked to a huge commission to paint four justice scenes for the "Golden Chamber" of Brussels City Hall.

Different properties and investments are documented and witness his material prosperity. The portraits he painted of the Burgundian Dukes, their relatives and courtiers, demonstrate a close relationship with the elite of the Netherlands. Whilst Rogier van der Weyden became increasingly wealthy, he also gave generously in alms to the poor. Further testimony of his philanthropy is van der Weyden's position as administrator of the hospital and charitable foundation Ter Kisten of the Beguine convent in Brussels between 1455 and 1457. The Miraflores Altarpiece was probably commissioned by King Juan II of Castile, since Juan II donated it to the monastery of Miraflores in 1445.

According to some sources, in 1449 Rogier went to Italy, and in the holy year 1450 quite possibly made a pilgrimage to Rome, which brought him in contact with Italian artists and patrons. However, his Italian experiences had no influence on his style. The House of Este and the Medici family commissioned paintings from him. After interventions from both the Duke of Burgundy and the Dauphin of France, the future Louis XI, Rogier van der Weyden was persuaded to accept the request of Bianca Maria Visconti, Duchess of Milan, that her court painter Zanetto Bugatto go to Brussels to become an apprentice in his workshop.

Rogier's international reputation increased progressively. In the 1450s and 1460s humanist scholars such as Nicolas Cusanus, Filarete and Bartolomeo Facio referred to him in superlatives: 'the greatest', 'the most noble' of painters.

Van der Weyden died on 18 June 1464 at Brussels, and was buried in St. Catherine's Chapel of the Cathedral of St. Michael and St. Gudula.

Attribution

No single work can be attributed with certainty to van der Weyden on 15th-century documentary evidence alone. However, Lorne Campbell has stated that three well-authenticated paintings are known, but each has been doubted or underestimated. The best documented is The Descent from the Cross in the Museo del Prado, Madrid. Campbell points out that this painting's provenance can be traced in some detail from the 16th century. Originally hung in the church Notre-Dame-hors-des-Murs in Leuven, The Descent from the Cross was sent to the King of Spain. While the ship on which it was travelling sank, the painting fortunately floated, and careful packaging meant that it was scarcely damaged. A copy of the masterpiece by Michel Coxcie was donated to the people of Leuven to replace the original sent to Spain. The Triptych of the Virgin or Miraflores Altarpiece, since 1850 in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, was given in 1445 to the Charterhouse of Miraflores near Burgos by John II of Castile; it was described in the deed of gift as the work of great and famous Flandresco Rogel. The Crucifixion, now in the Escorial Palace, was donated by Rogier to the Charterhouse of Scheut outside Brussels. In his catalogue raisonné of van der Weyden, the Belgian art historian Dirk de Vos agrees with Campbell about the authenticity of these three paintings.

Rogier's apprenticeship under Campin instilled a number of preoccupations, most noticeably his approach to feminine beauty, which was often expressed both through the elegant form of the model herself as well as her dress. Both painters positioned their models within strong diagonal lines, rendered either through headdress or folds of surrounding draperies or cloth. Both emphasised the vivacity of their model's character by contrasting them against dark flat backgrounds and throwing strong light from the near left hand side. Campbell compares Campin's Thief with Rogier's Prado The Descent from the Cross in their emotional depictions of anguish. The resemblance was to such an extent – compare Campin's Portrait of a Woman's similarity to Rogier's Berlin portrait – that Campin's works were for a period attributed to Rogier's early career.

Châtelet illustrates how subsequent generations of art historians have conflated and confused Rogier van der Weyden's identity, thereby mis-attributing works of art. It can be traced back to a geographical error in Vasari's Vite de' più eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori where he states that the artist 'Rugiero da Brugia' lived in Bruges. Van Mander, who knew that Rogier van der Weyden resided in Brussels, read Vasari's text and believed that there were two different artists with the same name, who both appear separately in his Schilder-boeck of 1604. Châtelet explains how the Brussels archivist Alphonse Walters discovered in 1846 that there was a Rogier van der Weyden who lived in Brussels but that he had died earlier than stated in the Schilder-Boeck; this led Alfred Michiels to claim that there were two Rogier van der Weyden painters, a father and son. A further complication arose at the end of the 19th century when William Bode and Hugo von Tschudi attributed a group of works of art to the "Maître de Flémalle"; despite discrepancies, these works are similar to those of Van der Weyden and so it was believed that these works were in fact by Rogier and that he was the "Maître de Flémalle". It was only in 1913 that Hulin de Loo indicated that these works were actually painted by Rogier's teacher Robert Campin. There was still a divide in critical opinion over whether there was one Rogier van der Weyden or two artists, the other being Rogier de la Pasture of Tournai, until Erwin Panofsky wrote his definitive work in 1953 Early Netherlandish Painting and established that there was only one painter with two names.

Work

Relatively few works are attributed to van der Weyden's relatively long career, but this does not mean he was un-prolific, more that it is likely that many have been lost. Nonetheless, he had a very well defined style, and the majority of the attributions are generally accepted. Van der Weyden left no self-portraits. However it has been suggested that he painted a self-portrait into one of the Justice panels, which was subsequently copied into the Bern tapestry. A drawing with the inscription "Recueil d'Arras" is also said to depict Van der Weyden.

Many of his most important works were destroyed during the late 17th century. He is first mentioned in historical records in 1427 when, relatively late in life, he studied painting under Campin during 1427–32, and soon outshone his master and, later, even influenced him. After his apprenticeship, he was made master of the Tournai Guild of St Luke. He moved to Brussels in 1435, where he quickly established his reputation for his technical skill and emotional use of line and colour. He completed his Deposition in 1435, which as he had deliberately intended, made him one of the most sought after and influential artists in northern Europe and is still considered his masterpiece.

The fragment of the London National Gallery's The Magdalen Reading has been described by Campbell as "one of the great masterpieces of fifteenth-century art and among Rogier's most important early works". Since the 1970s, this painting has been linked to two small heads in the collection of the Calouste Gulbenkian Museum (Lisbon), of Saint Catherine and of St Joseph. It is now widely believed that these three fragments came from the same large altarpiece depicting the "Virgin and Child with Saints", partly recorded in a later drawing now in Stockholm. At some unknown date before 1811, this altarpiece was carved up into these three fragments.

The lost The Justice of Trajan and Herkinbald, which survived until the end of the 17th century, consisted of four large panels representing the Justice of Trajan and Justice of Herkenbald. These were commissioned by the City of Brussels for the Gulden Camere (Golden Chamber) of the Brussels Town Hall. The first and third panels were signed, and the first dated 1439. All four were finished before 1450. They were destroyed in the French Bombardment of Brussels in 1695, but are known from many surviving descriptions, from a free partial copy in tapestry (Bern, Historisches Museum) and from other free and partial copies in drawing and painting. The paintings probably measured about 4.5 m each, which was an enormous scale for a painting on panel at that time. They served as 'examples of justice' for the aldermen of the city who had to speak justice in this room. The paintings were praised or described by a series of commentators until their destruction, including Dürer (1520), Vasari (1568), Molanus (c. 1570–1580), and Baldinucci (1688).

In his commissioned portraits, van der Weyden typically flattered his sitters. He often idealised or softened their facial features, allowing them a handsomeness or beauty, or interest or intelligence they might not have been blessed with in life. He often enlargened the eyes, better defined the contours of the face, and gave a much stronger jaw than the subject may have possessed in life. Among his most celebrated portraits are those of Philip the Good, his third wife Isabella of Portugal and their son Charles the Bold.

Influence
His vigorous, subtle, expressive painting and popular religious conceptions had considerable influence on European painting, not only in France and Germany but also in Italy and in Spain. Panofsky writes how Rogier van der Weyden introduced new religious iconography in his painting; he depicted patrons participating in sacred events and combined half-portraits of the Madonna with portraits of people in prayer to form diptychs. He also reformulated and popularised the subject of Saint Jerome removing the thorn from the lion's paw.

Hans Memling was his greatest follower, although it is not proven that he studied under Rogier. Van der Weyden had also a large influence on the German painter and engraver Martin Schongauer whose prints were distributed all over Europe from the last decades of the 15th century. Indirectly Schongauer's prints helped to disseminate van der Weyden's style. Delenda writes that, with the exception of Petrus Christus, who was a disciple of Jan van Eyck, traces of Rogier van der Weyden's art can be found in all fifteenth-century artists to varying degrees.

title: Rogier van der Weyden


text:
Rheinhessen-Pfalz

Rheinhessen-Pfalz (rarely anglicized as "Rhine-Hesse-Palatinate") was one of the three Regierungsbezirke of Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, located in the south of the state. It was created in 1968 out of Regierungsbezirke Rheinhessen and Pfalz, which had themselves been created out of the left-bank territories of Bavaria and Hesse-Darmstadt before World War II.

Since 2000, the employees and assets of the Bezirksregierungen form the Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion Trier (Supervisory and Service Directorate Trier) and the Struktur- und Genehmigungsdirektionen (Structural and Approval Directorates) Nord in Koblenz and Süd in Neustadt (Weinstraße). These administrations execute their authority over the whole state, e.g. the ADD Trier oversees all schools.

Kreise (districts)
 * 1) Alzey-Worms
 * 2) Bad Dürkheim
 * 3) Donnersbergkreis
 * 4) Germersheim
 * 5) Kaiserslautern
 * 6) Kusel
 * 7) Rhein-Pfalz-Kreis (formerly Ludwigshafen)
 * 8) Mainz-Bingen
 * 9) Südliche Weinstraße
 * 10) Südwestpfalz

Kreisfreie Städte (district-free towns)
 * 1) Frankenthal
 * 2) Kaiserslautern
 * 3) Landau
 * 4) Ludwigshafen
 * 5) Mainz
 * 6) Neustadt (Weinstraße)
 * 7) Pirmasens
 * 8) Speyer
 * 9) Worms
 * 10) Zweibrücken

title: Rheinhessen-Pfalz