The Painting: Based on the Gospel of Saint Matthew 2:1–22, this Adoration of the Magi takes place on a grand porch, where the three magi have arrived to worship the Christ Child. In the background right and left are a stable with the ox and the ass, and Joseph’s carpentry shop, where pieces of wood and various tools are strewn on the floor. A servant, the three kings, and the Holy Family are aligned in two parallel, diagonal tracks across the expanse of the room. Dressed in a regal blue gown and voluminous white mantle, the Virgin sits on a red-covered bed. She tenderly holds her child with her right hand and appears to press him forward with her left hand, presenting Christ to the oldest king, who kneels in adoration, offering his gift. Two other kings, one middle-aged and the other youthful, patiently wait to approach the Christ Child. Playing a subsidiary role, Christ’s earthly father, Joseph, gestures with his left hand as if both to welcome the visitors and to present the Virgin and Child to them. With his hat in his right hand, and his forward-leaning pose, Joseph appears to have just arrived on the scene. The retinue of the kings, accompanied by a greyhound wearing a decorative gold collar, crowd in at the left, eagerly observing the event.

This portrayal is augmented by details, naturally placed as if part of the daily life of the Holy Family but intended to convey deeper religious meaning. It is replete with visual references to Christ’s Incarnation and eventual sacrifice and death on the cross for the redemption of humankind. Prominent in both its placement and red color, the thalamus virginis, or nuptial bed of Mary as the Bride of Christ, signals a theological concept that is found in various exegetical texts and in the writings of the Latin Fathers and theologians.[1] It underscores Christ’s Incarnation and his union with God the Father through his virgin mother, thereby marrying his divine nature with his human nature. On the bedside table is a candleholder and snuffed out candle, perhaps alluding to the greater “light” present with the Christ Child. Casually placed on the three-legged table in the foreground is the milk-soup meal for the Christ Child; it nourishes him just as he, in turn, will spiritually nourish the faithful. Also here are a knife near two small loaves of bread, and a glass for wine. The bread and the wine are Eucharistic symbols, recalling the last meal Christ shared with his disciples before his crucifixion, and the commemoration of that event by the faithful when celebrating the sacrament of Holy Communion. With a subservient attitude, an advancing Black attendant presents a gold vessel to the Black king, who, in turn, will offer it to the Child. It is decorated on the tip of its lid with a pelican pricking its breast to feed its young, a symbol of Christ’s self-sacrifice for humankind. Instead of another golden vessel, the middle-aged king’s gift is quite unusual for an Adoration of the Magi. It is a crystal orb, symbolic of the world, and reminiscent of the attribute Christ holds as Salvator Mundi (Savior of the World). Recalling other events of the Passion of Christ is the column base at the lower left that signals the column to which Christ was tied and thrashed before his crucifixion. The emphasis here on Christ’s Incarnation and sacrifice for the salvation of humankind suggests the likely function of this painting as an altarpiece or antependium. The fact that the scene is viewed from above supports the latter notion, as the painting would then be properly coordinated with the standing position of a priest celebrating Holy Communion before it.

Attribution and Date: This painting is most often attributed to Justus van Ghent (also called Joos van Wassenhove, as he is here), with Paul Eeckhout expressing a rare dissenting voice, favoring instead Hugo van der Goes (Eeckhout 1994, pp. 422–23). Scholars have associated the Adoration of the Magi in date with the Crucifixion Triptych usually dated about 1465 (Saint Bavo’s Cathedral, Ghent; see fig. 1 above),[2] which Joos van Wassenhove presumably painted before his trip to Italy, where a “Giusto da Guanto”—thought to be the same as Joos van Wassenhove—is documented in 1473–74 working on the Communion of the Apostles for the Confraternity of Corpus Domini in Urbino (now in the Galleria Nazionale in Urbino).[3] It has been supposed that the Adoration of the Magi was painted slightly after 1465 (Sprinson de Jésus 1998, pp. 105–6). Otto Pächt (1927–29, p. 49), on the other hand, and without providing further justification, was firmly convinced that it was painted in Italy after the Communion of the Apostles, thus after about 1474.

Despite the fact that the Crucifixion Triptych is in oil on wood and this Adoration is a tüchlein (distemper on canvas), there are stylistic and technical similarities that indicate a possible workshop connection. Overall elements of the composition relate to each other, especially the prominent use of directional diagonal axes along which the figures are arranged in order to suggest recession into space. The way the bystanders at the left in the triptych centerpiece and in the Adoration crowd in together is comparable; many partial heads are identified by variously shaped hats and punctuated by the color red (compare figs. 2, 3). Also equivalent are the variety of facial types represented and their consistent and convincing preoccupation with the theme at hand. Certain types, such as the man in each in the foreground in the red hat with beard (compare figs. 4, 5) are analogous. A distinctive characterization of the wizened old man, with animated hand gestures, and with sharply articulated features and long, often unruly, beard enlivens the biblical episodes of each painting (compare figs. 6–9). Furthermore, there is the tall, thin, and elegant young Black man who is featured as one of the magi in the Adoration and introduced as an exoticized type in the Crucifixion Triptych (compare figs. 10, 11).

New Sources for the Adoration of the Magi and its Innovative Presentation: Several details of the Adoration of the Magi not previously discussed help to clarify the questions of its date and where it was painted. However, to recognize the revolutionary nature of the composition for an early Netherlandish painting, it is helpful to identify the formative influences on Joos’s work. These influences derive from the style of Dieric Bouts, as is also the case with the Crucifixion Triptych. Jacqueline Folie (1960, pp. 113–16) noted that the Virgin and Child are seated on a red-covered bed as they are in the Bouts Pearl of Brabant (Bayerische Staatgemäldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, Munich), and as the Virgin is in Bouts’s Virgin in the Annunciation (J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles).[4] In fact, if one reverses the Pearl of Brabant (fig. 12), there are indeed compositional similarities between this painting and The Met’s Adoration of the Magi. The biblical episode plays out across a broad, slightly tilted-up plane, punctuated by vertical supporting posts of the architecture, where the main protagonists are aligned across it. The three-legged table is a familiar prop in both paintings, and the interior stable of the dilapidated architecture, likewise, is relegated to an upper corner where the ox and the ass roam freely. Looking closer at the type of the Virgin, it is clear that Joos’s Virgin also derives from Boutsian models: the long curved contour of the cheek starting at the ear and culminating at the chin; the sharply parted hair; the bulbous peaks of the forehead; the arched eyebrows leading into the long, straight, thin nose; and the Cupid’s-bow lips (compare figs. 13, 14).[5] Joos’s Black king—tall, slender, fashionably dressed, and elegantly poised— recalls figures in paintings by Dieric Bouts, especially those in the Justice of Emperor Otto, in particular the two figures at far left and right in the Ordeal by Fire (Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels; fig. 15).

Joos was also acquainted with Hugo van der Goes’s works. The copy of the Adoration of the Magi in front of the Stable on the Hill (Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, fig. 16) shows the same popular motif of a Black servant offering the precious golden vessel to the Black king. This motif features prominently at the left in Joos’s Adoration and may well be a detail that he recalled from Hugo’s original painting (now lost), assimilating it into his own work.

Despite the stylistic relationships with paintings by Bouts and van der Goes, there are certain details of The Met’s Adoration that suggest that it was not painted in Ghent before Joos left for Italy, but instead was produced in Italy, reflecting experiences the painter had in Rome and at Duke Federico da Montefeltro’s court at Urbino. These specific features include the prominent geometric structure of the composition and the architecture viewed in the background. Despite the general similarities between Bouts’s paintings, such as the Pearl of Brabant and Joos’s painting, the latter shows an expanded and far grander space that places within it figures in two parallel tracks, evenly spaced and meticulously laid out with mathematical precision. The composition shows a masterful geometric schema that focuses on the magi and their gifts to the Christ Child within one grand rhombus, itself comprising four equal rhombuses (fig. 17). Directional diagonal lines bisect each of two adjoining rhombuses, highlighting the servant, Black king, and middle-aged king in one, and the old king, Virgin and Child, and Joseph in the other.

The calculated arrangement of figures in the grand, geometrically-conceived composition of the Adoration of the Magi calls to mind the Italian paintings that Joos van Wassenhove must have seen in the environs of Urbino, when he first arrived there at the court of Duke Federico da Montefeltro. One of the duke’s favorite painters and his close personal friend was Piero della Francesca, who worked for the duke on an extended stay in Urbino from 1463–66. The duke and the painter shared an interest in architecture and in geometry. Piero dedicated his De prospective pingendi (On Perspective in Painting) to Federico, and his Tractatus de quinque corporibus refularibus (Treaise on the Five Regular Geometric Bodies) to the duke’s son Guidobaldo. Well known is Piero’s reliance on geometry for the compositions of his paintings. In his Baptism of Christ (ca. 1440–50 or dated as late as 1460 by some scholars), for example, the circle of the heavenly sphere and the equilateral triangle with Christ, himself within a rhombus on earth, overlap; Christ is in the area common to both spheres as a kind of intermediary between heaven and earth (figs. 18, 19). Like the middle-aged king in Joos’s Adoration of the Magi, Christ is placed directly on the vertical axis of the painting. There is also the strong diagonal that passes through the figures at the base of the Baptism of Christ, a feature that, likewise, is used in Joos’s Adoration. In his Flagellation of Christ of about 1455–60, most probably made for the duke, Piero arranged his figures within an idealized architectural setting, carefully organized on a perspectival grid. Other paintings that Piero made for Federico, such as the Brera Madonna of 1472–74 (Brera, Milan) show a carefully composed space, produced with Albertian principles in mind. By 1472–73, Piero della Francesca had left the Urbino court and was replaced by Netherlandish painters, among them “Giusto da Guanto” (that is, Joos van Wassenhove), but the former’s influence certainly must have remained in situ. Although Joos’s Adoration of the Magi does not go so far as to demonstrate a one-point perspective, it does show a new understanding of geometric schemas that likely were familiar to him from examples by Dieric Bouts, but were greatly influenced by his acquaintance with Piero’s paintings at the court in Urbino. Certainly Joos would have wished to curry favor with Federico by demonstrating an interest in and ability to adapt to the geometric spatial organization so embraced by Italian artists at the time, particularly Federico’s favorite artist, Piero della Francesca.

Another startling departure that we find in Joos van Wassenhove’s Adoration has to do with the background, exterior view (fig. 20). Early Netherlandish depictions of this theme invariably show landscapes or cityscapes that are generically Flemish and locally recognizable, as in Bouts’s Pearl of Brabant. In Joos’s painting, through the open columned window, there is a courtyard, and to the left of this (near the head of the Black king) there appears to be a multi-level palace set into the rocky hillside. Again, to the left is a prominent circular, crenellated tower with a window, and—at the far left—another tower with wood struts and what appears to be a temporary roof. Between these two buildings one can make out the blue sea that meets the sky at the horizon. While the small courtyard and the stone building set into the rocky hillside remind us of Urbino, the two towers at the left suggest other environs. These very likely represent structures, much altered over time, that are found along the Via Appia near and in Rome.[6] The crenellated tower was quite possibly inspired by the tomb of Cecilia Metella, which was built during the 1st century BCE to honor Cecilia Metella, the wife of Marcus Licinius Crassus, who served under Julius Caesar (fig. 21). The famous tomb is located at the three-mile marker of the Via Appia, just outside of Rome. The tower with wooden struts and a temporary roof looks like the Sepolcro de’Scipioni / Sepolcro di Pricilla, here shown in an eighteenth-century print by Piranesi (fig. 22).[7] The tomb belonged to Priscilla, wife of Titus Flavius Abascanthus, freedman of the emperor Domitian, and was erected in the 1st century BCE in Rome on the Via Appia, just in front of the church of Domine quo vadis.

There is, to my knowledge, nothing else like this in early Netherlandish painting at this time. This suggests that the background of The Met’s painting is a specific response to the local environment that Joos van Wassenhove experienced in Italy where, according to archival documents, he arrived in 1469–70 in Rome and subsequently in Urbino from 1472. Could it be that Joos is referencing both the famous monuments that he experienced near Rome and the dwellings built into the rocky hillside of Urbino, the location of his new patron, Federico da Montefeltro? If so, then Joos was likely appealing to the great interest that Federico had in architecture—past and present.

The ducal palace at Urbino was begun by Duke Federico da Montefeltro in the mid-fifteenth century, by the Florentine Maso di Bartolomeo.[8] Its solid rock hillside setting was well protected from siege but very challenging for constructing a palace. Giovanni Santi, a theatrical designer, painter, portraitist, and poet, who worked at the Urbino court from 1474 remarked upon the architecture of the palace, which grew into a formidable construction on the rocky overhang.[9] He noted that Federico spared no expense and hired the greatest known architects of the day, in particular Luciano Laurana (ca. 1400/20–1479), the most highly ranked of them all. Federico especially admired Laurana, because like himself, he embraced Alberti’s ideas as expressed in De picture (1435) and De re aedificatoria (1483). Among the tenets of these treatises are that the painter should have a good knowledge of geometry, and the architect should be well versed in painting and mathematics. It is in this context that The Met’s Adoration of the Magi can most readily be understood and appreciated.

One final detail of the painting may also signal familiarity with the ducal court and its habitués. Unusual for a Netherlandish Adoration of the Magi painting of about 1472–74 is the inclusion of three Black figures. In addition to the usual Black magus—who is so strikingly singled out here in elegant attire and pose—are two additional Black people among the magi’s retinue. The Italian courts, especially those of the d’Este, Sforza, and Gonzaga, are known to have enslaved Black people. There were also Black courtiers of more elevated rank, some of whom were musicians, favored attendants, and diplomatic messengers.[10] Although current research has not shown evidence of Black people at the court of the Duke of Montefeltro,[11] close connections especially with the Gonzaga (Federico's son, Guidobaldo, was married to Elisabetta Gonzaga) may have fostered a Black presence at the Urbino court. The fact that the three Black figures represented in The Met painting are so little differentiated in their physiognomy may suggest that the painter had only one model in mind or infrequent interaction with Black people at court.

The Adoration of the Magi—Suggestions for its Function and Placement: As previously discussed, The Met’s Adoration incorporates within it symbolic details that reference the Incarnation and Passion of Christ. It specifically signals Christ’s sacrifice for and redemption of humankind through his crucifixion on the cross. As such, it would have been an appropriate altarpiece or antependium at an altar where the celebration of the Eucharist would take place. Efforts to locate a specific site for this painting have not yet been successful. The measurements of the Capella del Perdono in the Palazzo Ducale could not accommodate the large size of The Met painting, and the chapel in the apartment of the Duchess was likely not much bigger. Other fifteenth-century chapels in the Palazzo Ducale no longer exist. The more spacious Salotto, which in the 1490s was adorned with tapestries, also had a chapel.[12] However, no references to an Adoration of the Magi in the inventories of the duke’s collections have yet been found. Perhaps a more likely possibility would be the Chapel of the Sacrament in Urbino Cathedral, built in the fifteenth century under the patronage of Federico da Montefeltro and based on a design attributed to Francesco di Giorgio Martini.[13] Although completely redone in the sixteenth century, the apse chapel might have provided the location for Joos’s tüchlein that emphasizes the Incarnation and Passion of Christ, celebrated by the sacrament of communion.[14]

Given the characteristic features of Netherlandish paintings, joined here with an unusual and striking geometric construction, as well as background details that suggest Urbino and Rome rather than any environs of Flanders, the proposal that Joos van Wassenhove painted the Adoration of the Magi in about 1472–74 for Federico da Montefeltro in Urbino now appears more likely than previous theories. Christine Seidel’s recent research into the provenance of the painting does not support Louis Demonts’s assertion that the tüchlein was among the gifts made to the chapel of the dukes of Frías at Medina de Pomar near Burgos, Spain (Demonts 1925).[15] There is no corroborating evidence that it entered the convent in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth centuries or that Juan Fernández de Velasco gave it to the monastery in Medina de Pomar in the early seventeenth century, or that it entered the convent in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth centuries.[16] More likely is that the Adoration of the Magi was among those paintings that Joos van Wassenhove made for Federico da Montefeltro in about 1472–74.

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2022; revised 2024

[1] José María Salvador-González, “ The Symbol of Bed (Thalamus) in Images of the Annunciation of the 14th-15th Centuries in the Light of Latin Patristics,” International Journal of History and Cultural Studies 5, no. 4 (2019), pp. 49–70 and online DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2454-7654.0504005 www.arcjournals.org
[2] Friedrich Winkler, “Ein voritalienisches Werk des Justus van Gent,” Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 28, n.f. (1915–16) pp. 321–27; Antoine de Schrijver and Roger Marijnissen, “Het Calvarie-Drieluik toegeschreven aan Justus van Gent en de bijhorende Predella. Materiële Geschiedenis,” Bulletin de l’Institut royal du patrimoine artistique 4 (1961), pp. 11–23; Francesca Bottacin, Giusto di Gand e la Comunione del Duca d’Urbino, Padua, 2021, passim; and Bart Fransen et al., forthcoming publication of the KIK/IRPA, Brussels research project. At the October 21, 2021 meeting of this research group, Stephan Kemperdick raised the interesting possibility that the Crucifixion Triptych in fact may date later to around 1475–80. Bart Fransen and Dominique Deneffe noted that there are two important dates with which the triptych could feasibly be associated: the chapel foundation of 1462 and Laurent de Maech’s burial in 1483. This as well as other issues, including the artist(s) responsible for the Crucifixion Triptych, remain open for discussion.
[3] J. Lavalleye, Les Primitifs flamands, I. Corpus de la Peinture des anciens Pays-Bas Méridionaux au Quinzième Siècle, 7, Le Palais ducal d’Urbin, Brussels, 1964, pp. 1–43.
[4] Diane Wolfthal and Cathy Metzger, Corpus of Early Netherlandish Painting; 22, Los Angeles Museums, Brussels, 2014, pp. 46–87.
[5] Compare the Virgin in the Adoration of the Magi with the Virgin in the following Bouts or Bouts and workshop paintings: Virgin and Child (The Met, 30.95.280); Virgin and Child (National Gallery of Art, Washington); Virgin and Child (National Gallery, London); Virgin (fragment from a Nativity; Gemäldegalerie, Berlin); Virgin and Child (Städel Museum, Frankfurt).
[6] This suggestion was made by both Fernando Marias and Machtelt Brüggen Israëls to whom I am most appreciative for email exchanges on this matter (email with Fernando Marias of June 5, 2024, and with Machtelt Brüggen Israëls of July 25, 2024).
[7] This was suggested independently by both Fernando Marias and Machtelt Brüggen Israëls (emails mentioned n. 6).
[8] Concerning Federico’s architectural projects, see Vespiano da Bisticci, Le Vite, ed. A. Greco, Florence, 1970–76, vol. 1, pp. 414–15. On the ducal palace at Urbino, see Olga Raggio, The Gubbio Studiolo and its Conservation, I. Federico da Montefeltro’s Palace at Gubbio and Its Studiolo, New York, 1999, pp. 33–37.
[9] On the architecture of the ducal palace, see above.
[10] On this subject, see Revealing the African presence in Renaissance Europe, ed. Joaneath Spicer, with contributions by Natalie Zemon Davis, Kate Lowe, Joaneath Spicer, Ben Vinson III, Baltimore, 2012; and Black Africans in Renaissance Europe, ed. T. F. Earle and K. J. P. Lowe, Cambridge, England, 2005, especially the essays by Paul H. D. Kaplan, Sergio Tognetti, and Nelson H. Minnich.
[11] For their discussions with me on this matter, I particularly thank Kate Lowe, Paul Kaplan, and Sabine Eiche.
[12] I am most grateful to Machtelt Brüggen Israëls who provided this helpful information (email to Maryan Ainsworth July 25, 2024).
[13] I am very grateful to Machtelt Brüggen Israëls for suggesting this possibility to me (email to Maryan Ainsworth of July 25, 2024).
[14] See Negroni 1993.
[15] Email of Christine Seidel to Maryan Ainsworth on July 24, 2020.
[16] As Christine Seidel notes (email to Maryan Ainsworth of July 24, 2020): There are no further donations to the monastery recorded that could have been made by Juan Fernández de Velasco. The only reference to tüchlein is in his personal inventory of goods in his house in Madrid drawn up after his death in 1613 that mentions "98 Flemish tempera paintings on cloth that he bought in Flanders on the day of the peace of England" (Nobenta y ocho lienços de Flandes grandes y chicos al tenple de los que conpro el Condestable en Flandes en la Jornada de las paces de Ynglaterra […]), cited after María Cruz de Carlos, ”El VI Condestable de Castilla, coleccionista e intermediario de encargos reales (1592–1613),” in Arte y diplomacia de la Monarquía Hispánica en el siglo XVII, ed. by José Luis Colomer (Madrid, 2003), pp. 247–73, at p. 267, who published this inventory, which more likely was ephemeral decoration. Two other interesting patrons, Beatriz Manrique (d. 1473/74?) and Mencía de Mendoza (d. 1500; the wife of Pedro Fernández de Velasco, Contestable de Castilla) made donations to both Medina de Pomar and the cathedral in Burgos at the end of the fifteenth century, but there is no published documentary evidence to link the tüchlein to Medina de Pomar.

Support: The support is a simple tabby weave canvas, which appears to be linen but was not analyzed. The canvas averages 16.7 x 16.4 threads per square centimeter.[1] The original dimensions of the painting are nearly preserved. There appears to be an unpainted margin of canvas along the top edge, indicating that the original edge of the painting is preserved at the top. The bottom edge has been damaged; the canvas is ragged and there is a significant repair at the center. But the degree of cusping along the bottom is similar to that present at the top edge, suggesting that only a small amount of canvas was lost along the bottom. Dark reddish-brown painted borders along the left and right edges indicate that those original edges have been preserved. Such painted borders are not uncommon in early Netherlandish tüchleins, and they seemingly served to demarcate the borders of the painting during the stretching and painting process and were ultimately obscured by a frame.[2] They seem to have been typically applied to all four edges of a painting.[3]

The size of the canvas would have necessitated a secondary support of some type, likely a solid wood support.[4] Several series of old tacking holes are present in the unpainted margin at top and in the reddish-brown painted margins at the left and the right, some of which may be related to the original stretching.

The painting is currently wax-lined to a secondary canvas, but a treatment photograph taken in 1957 recorded the original reverse, where the distemper paint has soaked through the canvas resulting in a ghost composition in reverse (see fig. 23 above).

Preparation: The canvas was likely sized with glue prior to painting, but neither a ground nor a toning layer could be detected through visual examination.

Examination with infrared reflectography revealed a limited amount of underdrawing, primarily located beneath the Virgin’s blue mantle.[5] This drawing, which appears to have been done using a liquid medium but with a dry brush, describes the folds of the drapery. The underdrawn strokes are relatively loose and sketchy, rather different in character from the painted hatching visible on the surface (figs. 24, 25). A good deal of linear hatching and cross-hatching as well as delineation of contours can be seen with the naked eye; see for example, the drapery of the Black servant and the legs of the Black king (fig. 26). Microscopic examination revealed that these lines were all brushed on top of the paint layers, not an initial preparatory drawing that is now visible through the paint.

In addition to the more easily discerned underdrawing in the Virgin’s robe, there do appear to be a few lines of underdrawing elsewhere, perhaps signs of a more extensive underdrawing. In the infrared reflectogram, some lines can be seen in the drapery of the figure in the green robe and red hat, or the sword belt of the youngest magus, that do not match the final composition. It is possible that underdrawing is present that was not detectable with infrared reflectography or that it was too closely followed by the painted black contours to distinguish. For such a large and intricately orchestrated composition surely some sort of initial planning would have been necessary.

Paint Layers: The distemper paint was applied using thin washes, resulting in a more matte paint surface and muted palette than is typically seen in an oil painting on panel. Executed in a technique less familiar to many than an oil painting—in part because of the relatively few examples that survive—it is important appreciate the degree to which a tüchlein has altered with time. Some alterations are inherent to the vulnerable technique and others are the result of human interventions. Most immediately evident is the pale brown tonality overall. In fact, this is imparted by the canvas support, which is now light brown in color but would have been off-white at the time of painting. This alteration is due in part to the natural darkening of the fabric with age, and in part to staining from the many materials that were applied to the reverse of the canvas as lining adhesives or to the obverse as varnishes.

The color of the canvas plays an outsize role in tüchleins, due to the absence of ground and priming layers and to the very thin paint. Under magnification it is clear that not only do we see the canvas through the paint layers, but also that the canvas is actually exposed at the high points of the weave, due to a combination of paint application and abrasion. The paint would always have been quite thin at the high points of the weave; applied in very thin washes the paint would have collected in the interstices of the weave. Yet the paint film at the higher points would have been more vulnerable to abrasion and may also be somewhat rubbed. The paint layers have also been affected by the many materials applied during past restorations, particularly the glue residue and the current wax lining, resulting in an overall darkening. Despite the inherently fragile nature of the tüchlein technique and the impact of past materials used to stabilize the painting, the subtleties of tone and shading remain remarkably legible.

The color combinations and the painting technique would have been more striking when the painting was first created. The pigments used and the fabrics they were meant to depict would have conveyed a sense of great luxury. The changeant drapery of the robe worn by the Black servant at left provides a spectacular entering point into the composition from the lower left. However, the pink passage of the robe appears to have been painted with a red lake that has faded and would have been more prominent originally. This faded pink can also be seen in the hose of the youngest king and the two-tone doublet of the spectator in the crowd at the upper left. The rich red lake would have been complemented by the passages of bright vermilion scattered throughout the composition, for example in the eldest king’s robe and the bed coverlet.[6]

The artist’s use of chalk white instead of lead white in some passages demonstrates his familiarity with the distemper painting technique. He took advantage of the lower refractive index of a glue binder, in which chalk appears opaque, while it would be nearly transparent when mixed with oil.[7] This becomes clear upon examining the x-radiograph: some passages contain white but are radio-transparent in the x-radiograph, suggesting the use of chalk white (fig. 27). For example, the white underpainting in the Black servant’s robe is radio-opaque while the white underpainting in the youngest king’s hose is radio-transparent. The distemper medium may also account for the artist’s widespread use of painted hatchmarks. With a water-based medium on canvas it is impossible to create the rich glazes and the deep tones of an oil painting, and so hatchmarks may have been a way to add depth and approximate the subtle modeling of final glazes. For example, we see the artist using hatchmarks of red lake in the youngest king’s hose to achieve the tonal gradation rather than red lake glazes. Similar painted hatchmarks do appear to be present on the tüchleins by Dieric Bouts in London and Los Angeles (see Catalogue Entry).

Other technical observations suggest an artist adept in this technique. The blue sleeves of the youngest king, painted with a copper-containing blue, likely azurite, have been underpainted with lead white. This may represent a change in costume, but, more probably, it was a strategic decision, as layering blue upon a solid white would have produced a more vibrant blue than painting directly onto the unprimed canvas. Lead white has also been used to underpaint the heads of most of the major figures, except the Black servant. In the x-radiograph this underpainting is evident as loose ovals approximating the shapes of the heads, that were not strictly followed in the painting. This strategy of underpainting the flesh with lead white could have been a means of approximating the conventional Netherlandish panel painting practice of building up fleshtones with thin glazes on top of a bright white ground.

Only a few minor alterations were made during painting. The most noticeable changes were in the painted contour of the youngest king’s foot and the left side of the bed, which can be observed in the infrared reflectogram and in the x-radiograph.

Sophie Scully 2022

[1] Thread count calculated by Dr. D.H. Johnson, co-director of the Thread Count Automation Project. In her study of Early Netherlandish paintings on canvas Diane Wolfthal found a range of 13-40 threads per square centimeter, but most fell between 18-20. Wolfthal, 1989, 23.
[2] Hélène Verougstraete, Frames and Supports in 15th- and 16th- Century Southern Netherlandish Painting, Brussels, 2015, pp. 75–78, e-book accessed Jun 16, 2021.
[3] See for example, the group of tüchleins by Dieric Bouts, including the Entombment, in the National Gallery, London, in which a light orange-brown painted border frames all four edges of the composition. David Bomford, Ashok Roy and Alistair Smith, “The Techniques of Dieric Bouts: Two Paintings Contrasted,” National Gallery Technical Bulletin 10 (1986), p. 46.
[4] Verougestraete, 2015, pp. 74–75.
[5] Infrared reflectography completed with a Merlin Indigo InGaAs near Infra-red camera with a StingRay macro lens customized for the wavelengths covered by the camera, 0.9 to 1.7 microns, March, 2014 and with an OSIRIS InGaAs near-infrared camera fitted with a 6-element, 150mm focal length f/5.6–f/45 lens; 900-1700nm spectral response, October 2018, by Evan Read.
[6] Pigments were identified using a Bruker Tracer handheld X-ray fluorescence spectrometer, Summer 2014.
[7] David Bomford and Ashok Roy also noted this practice in the Entombment by Dieric Bouts at the National Gallery David Bomford and Ashok Roy, “The Technique of Two Paintings by Dieric Bouts,” National Gallery Technical Bulletin (10) 1986, pp. 42–57.

?Duke Federico da Montefeltro, Urbino (from ca. 1472–74); ?Duques de Frías, Convento de Santa Clara, Medina de Pomar, near Burgos (probably until the 1880s); [Jacques Seligmann, Paris and New York, by 1922–24; sold to Blumenthal]; George Blumenthal, New York (1924–d. 1941; cat., vol. 1, 1926, pl. XLVI)

New York. F. Kleinberger Galleries. "Flemish Primitives," 1929, no. 17 (lent by George and Florence Blumenthal).

Bruges. Musée Communal des Beaux-Arts. "Le siècle des primitifs flamands," June 26–September 11, 1960, no. 25.

Detroit Institute of Arts. "Masterpieces of Flemish Art: Van Eyck to Bosch," October–December 1960, no. 20.

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Masterpieces of Fifty Centuries," November 14, 1970–June 1, 1971, no. 207.

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art," September 22, 1998–February 21, 1999, no. 7.

Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. "Hugo van der Goes: Between Pain and Bliss," March 31–July 16, 2023, no. 23.

Friedrich Winkler. Die altniederländische Malerei: Die Malerei in Belgien und Holland von 1400–1600. Berlin, 1924, p. 114, describes the character of this picture as between [Dieric] Bouts and Hugo [van der Goes] and notes [erroneously?] that it was recently with Kleinberger in Paris.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 3, Dierick Bouts und Joos van Gent. Berlin, 1925, pp. 84–86, 129, no. 101, pl. 83, as painted in Ghent, about 1466; mentions a compositionally related Epiphany in a private collection, Paris (no. 102, pl. 84, formerly collection Ernest Odiot).

Louis Demonts. "Essai sur Juste de Gand: À propos d'une "Adoration des Mages" et d'une "Mort de la Vierge"." Revue d'art 25 (January–June 1925), pp. 56–62, 65–66, 68–69, 72, ill. [same article published in Dutch in Onze Kunst, vol. 41, January–June 1925, pp. 51–70], notes that this picture belonged to Jacques Seligmann and came from the chapel of the dukes of Frías at Medina de Pomar near Burgos; comments on the unusual support and medium, observing that although few such works have survived, this medium was frequently employed in the Netherlands, and the Spanish climate may account for the picture's good state of preservation; observes that the Virgin receiving the Magi seated at the foot of a bed, and the rather unique three-legged table occur as well in an illumination in the Hortulus animae [Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, now generally attributed to Simon Bening]; mentions a related composition—a mediocre school work—in the Trevi museum; concludes that our picture must precede the "Communion of the Apostles" in the Urbino museum (Palazzo Ducale), and was produced at a time when Hugo's influence was greatest for the artist; sees the Christ child in Hugo's Virgin and Child in the Städelsches Kunstinstitut, Frankfurt, as the model for the child in our picture; suggests that the man in green wearing a red cap may be a portrait of Hugo van der Goes, and that the bearded figure at the extreme left could be a self-portrait.

Stella Rubinstein-Bloch. Catalogue of the Collection of George and Florence Blumenthal. Vol. 1, Paintings—Early Schools. Paris, 1926, unpaginated, pl. 46.

[Friedrich] Winkler in Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler. Ed. Hans Vollmer. Vol. 19, Leipzig, 1926, p. 354.

Otto Pächt. "Review of M. J. Friedländer, Dierick Bouts—Joos van Gent, 1925." Kritische Berichte 1–2 (1927–29), p. 49, rejects Friedländer's placement of this picture in Joos's Ghent years and is firmly convinced that it was painted in Italy after the "Communion of the Apostles".

Franz Dülberg. Niederländische Malerei der Spätgotik und Renaissance. Potsdam, 1929, p. 80.

[Hippolyte] Fierens-Gevaert and Paul Fierens. Histoire de la peinture flamande des origines à la fin du XVe siècle. Vol. 3, La maturité de l'art flamand. Paris, 1929, p. 36.

Sidney P. Noe. "Flemish Primitives in New York." American Magazine of Art 21 (January 1930), pp. 34–35.

Chandler Rathfon Post. A History of Spanish Painting. Vol. 4, The Hispano-Flemish Style in Northwestern Spain. Cambridge, Mass., 1933, part 1, p. 26, suggests that Joos van Gent and Hugo enjoyed the same popularity in Spain that they did in Italy, and mentions the Spanish provenance of our picture as evidence for this.

Hans Tietze. Meisterwerke europäischer Malerei in Amerika. Vienna, 1935, p. 333, pl. 133 [English ed., "Masterpieces of European Painting in America," New York, 1939, p. 318, pl. 133], as probably painted in 1466, or at least before 1468, in Ghent.

G. J. Hoogewerff. Vlaamsche kunst en Italiaansche Renaissance. Mechelen, [1935?], pp. 62–63, as painted before Joos went to Italy.

J[acques]. Lavalleye in "De vlaamsche schilderkunst tot ongeveer 1480." Geschiedenis van de vlaamsche kunst. Ed. Stan Leurs. Antwerp, 1936, p. 207, dates it 1464 or shortly thereafter.

Jacques Lavalleye. Juste de Gand: Peintre de Frédéric de Montefeltre. Louvain, 1936, pp. 79–81, pl. 6, as an early work, painted in the Netherlands; incorrectly describes the painting as a transfer to canvas.

Francis Henry Taylor. "The Blumenthal Collection." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 36 (October 1941), p. 197.

Hulin de Loo. Pedro Berruguete et les portraits d'Urbin. [Brussels], 1942, pp. 15–16 n. 2.

Harry B. Wehle. "A Painting by Joos van Gent." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 2 (December 1943), pp. 133–36, ill. p. 137 and on front cover (color detail).

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 54–56, ill., date it 1467, shortly after the Crucifixion in St. Bavo's, Ghent, noting that "the awkwardly placed figures and their odd poses are signs of immaturity that disappear in works of his Italian period".

Ernest Lotthé. La pensée chrétienne dans la peinture flamande et hollandaise. Lille, 1947, vol. 1, pp. 74–75, pl. 40; vol. 2, p. 324.

Erwin Panofsky. Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character. Cambridge, Mass., 1953, vol. 1, pp. 340–42, 503 n. 2 (to p. 341); vol. 2, pl. 292, calls it his earliest known picture; observes that the "three-legged coffee table" makes its first appearance in Dieric Bouts's Adoration in the Prado.

Leo van Puyvelde. La peinture flamande au siècle des van Eyck. Paris, 1953, pp. 239, 242, ill. (detail).

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 55.

Jacques Lavalleye in Juste de Gand, Berruguete, et la cour d'Urbino. Exh. cat., Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Ghent. Ghent, 1957, pp. 9, 14–15, 176, ill.

Paul Eeckhout. "Un peintre flamand a la cour d'Urbino, Juste de Gand." Jardin des arts 37 (November 1957), pp. 14, 16, ill.

A. Hyatt Mayor. "The Gifts that Made the Museum." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 16 (November 1957), p. 104, ill.

Friedrich Winkler. "Dieric Bouts und Joos van Gent: Ausstellungen in Brüssel und Gent." Kunstchronik 11 (January 1958), p. 8.

Colin Eisler. "Juan de Flandes's Saint Michael and Saint Francis." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 18 (December 1959), pp. 129, 131, ill.

Erik Larsen. Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York. Utrecht, 1960, pp. 66, 117, fig. 15.

Jacqueline Folie in Flanders in the Fifteenth Century: Art and Civilization. Exh. cat., Detroit Institute of Arts Groeninge Museum. Detroit, 1960, pp. 113–16, no. 20, ill., observes that the motif of the Virgin seated on a bed holding the Christ Child also appears in the central panel of Dieric Bouts's "Pearl of Brabant" (Alte Pinakothek, Munich); notes that Juan Fernández de Velasco, sixth Duke of Frías and ambassador to England, travelled in Flanders around 1600, and the painting may have been acquired at this time.

Germain Seligman. Merchants of Art: 1880–1960, Eighty Years of Professional Collecting. New York, 1961, p. 127, pl. 136, as purchased by George Blumenthal from Germain Seligman in 1924, following Jacques Seligmann's death in 1923; notes that Berenson confirmed the attribution to Joos van Gent.

Karl Arndt. "Gerard Davids 'Anbetung der Könige' nach Hugo van der Goes." Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 3rd ser., 12 (1961), p. 175 n. 88.

Paul Philippot. "La fin du XVème siècle et les origines d'une nouvelle conception de l'image dans la peinture des Pays-Bas." Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts Bulletin 11 (March–June 1962), p. 10.

Henri Pauwels. Musée Groeninge: Catalogue. Exh. cat.Bruges, 1963, p. 65, sees a reflection of this picture in an Adoration in the Groeninge museum, Bruges, ascribed to an Antwerp master, first quarter of the 16th century; believes the Bruges picture is based on a lost Adoration by Joos van Gent.

Friedrich Winkler. Das Werk des Hugo van der Goes. Berlin, 1964, pp. 308–9.

Jacques Lavalleye. Le palais ducal d'Urbin [Les primitifs flamands, I. Corpus de la peinture des anciens pays-bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle, vol. 7]. Brussels, 1964, pp. 25–27, makes detailed formal comparisons between this picture and the Urbino "Communion of the Apostles".

Ursula Nilgen. "The Epiphany and the Eucharist: On the Interpretation of Eucharistic Motifs in Mediaeval Epiphany Scenes." Art Bulletin 49 (December 1967), pp. 315–16, fig. 15, remarks that the small table—usually circular—that appears frequently in 15th- and early 16th-century paintings, especially in Germany and the Netherlands, was intended to depict and symbolize the altar and thus the Eucharist; notes that by means of a wine glass and bread, Joos has clearly indicated the eucharistic importance of the table in our picture.

Ignace Vandevivere. La cathédrale de Palencia et l'église paroissiale de Cervera de Pisuerga [Les primitifs flamands I. Corpus de la peinture des anciens pays-bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle, vol. 10]. Brussels, 1967, p. 102, comments on similarities in our picture and an Adoration of the Magi in the parish church of Cervera de Pisuerga ascribed to Juan de Flandes.

Charles D. Cuttler. Northern Painting from Pucelle to Bruegel. New York, 1968, pp. 148–49, ill.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 3, Dieric Bouts and Joos van Gent. New York, 1968, pp. 47–49, 74, no. 101, pl. 105.

Jan Bialostocki. "The Eye and the Window." Festschrift für Gert von der Osten. Ed. Horst Keller et al. [Cologne], 1970, p. 167, comments on the reflection on the orb held by the Magus at the right.

Calvin Tomkins. Merchants and Masterpieces: The Story of The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1970, p. 281 [rev., enl. ed., 1989].

Marilyn Aronberg Lavin. "Notes on the Iconography of Piero della Francesca's Fresco of Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta before St. Sigismund . . ." Art Bulletin 56 (September 1974), p. 365 n. 99, observes that the column fragment on the top step is "symbolic, representing the Flagellation by its shape, which follows that of the relic in the Saint Zeno Chapel, Santa Prassede, Rome".

J. P. De Bruyn in Gent, duizend jaar kunst en cultuur: Muurschilderkunst, schilderkunst, tekenkunst, graveerkunst, beeldhouwkunst. Exh. cat., Museum voor Schone Kunsten. Vol. 1, Ghent, 1975, p. 119.

Alfons W. Biermann. "Die Miniaturenhandschriften des Kardinals Albrecht von Brandenburg (1514–1545)." Aachener Kunstblätter 46 (1975), p. 122.

V. Denis. La peinture flamande 15e–16e–17e siècles. Brussels, 1976, p. 90.

Howard Hibbard. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1980, p. 193, fig. 355.

Paul Vandenbroeck. "Laatmiddeleeuwse doekschilderkunst in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden: Repertorium der nog bewaarde werken." Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1982), pp. 30, 56.

Catheline Périer-d'Ieteren. "La technique picturale de la peinture flamande du XVe siècle." La pittura nel XIV e XV secolo: il contributo dell'analisi tecnica alla storia dell'arte (Atti del XXIV congresso internazionale di storia dell'arte, 3). Ed. Henk W. van Os and J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer. Bologna, [1983], p. 15.

James Snyder. Northern Renaissance Art: Painting, Sculpture, the Graphic Arts from 1350 to 1575. New York, 1985, pp. 165–66, calls it "Boutsian".

Paul H. D. Kaplan. The Rise of the Black Magus in Western Art. PhD diss., Boston University. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1985, pp. 113, 278 n. 77, observes that the "swarthy but not African" Magi in Rogier van der Weyden's Bladelin and Columba altarpieces (respectively Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, and Alte Pinakothek, Munich) are imitated here by Joos.

Ignace Vandevivere. Juan de Flandes. Exh. cat., Memlingmuseum. Bruges, 1985, pp. 44, 46, ill. (detail).

Ignace Vandevivere. Juan de Flandes. Exh. cat., Museo Nacional del Prado. [Madrid], 1986, p. 61, sees in our picture a model for the group of Balthazar and his servant in Juan's Adoration of the Magi in Palencia (Iglesia de Santa María del Castillo).

Introduction by James Snyder in The Metropolitan Museum of Art: The Renaissance in the North. New York, 1987, pp. 10, 30–32, ill. (color).

Diane Wolfthal. "The Technique of Early Netherlandish Canvases." Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Ed. Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq and Roger van Schoute. Colloque 6, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1987, p. 86.

Colin Eisler. "What Takes Place in the Getty Annunciation?" Gazette des beaux-arts, 6th ser., 111 (March 1988), p. 193, observes that "paintings on linen were sometimes varnished at a later date to make them resemble costlier images," as was true for this picture.

Hans J. van Miegroet. Gerard David. Antwerp, 1989, pp. 43, 46, 78, 90 n. 33, ill. (color), compares the pose of the attendant in white at the far left of our picture with the armed figure of Abraham in Dieric Bouts's representatioin of Abraham and Melchizedek in his altarpiece of the Holy Sacrament in Louvain [Sint Pieterskirk], observing that this awkward gesture "formed part of the artistic stock in trade in Ghent in the 1470s"; also sees a relationship between the gestures of the kneeling king, Saint Joseph, and the Christ Child with those of comparable figures in the Adoration of the Magi from a "Davidian" book of hours of 1486 (Escorial, Madrid, fig. 73).

Diane Wolfthal. The Beginnings of Netherlandish Canvas Painting: 1400–1530. Cambridge, 1989, pp. 23, 25, 32–34, 41–42, 204–5, nn. 1–6 to cat no. 5, no. 5, figs. 19, 23, 26, 39, 45, 62, 63 (overall, details, and reverse), notes that "the rudimentary composition and awkward features, such as the relationship of Joseph's legs to the bed, suggest that this an early work by Joos, perhaps even earlier than his Crucifixion triptych in Ghent".

Robert A. Koch, Selected by Guy C. Bauman, and Walter A. Liedtke, Introduction by Walter A. Liedtke in Flemish Paintings in America: A Survey of Early Netherlandish and Flemish Paintings in the Public Collections of North America. Antwerp, 1992, pp. 70–71, no. 14, ill. (color).

Jochen Sander. Hugo van der Goes: Stilentwicklung und Chronologie. Mainz, 1992, pp. 240–42, fig. 99.

Paul Eeckhout. "Hugo van der Goes et le mythe de Joos van Wassenhove." Bulletin des Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique (1992–93), pp. 20, 30–31, 33, ill.

Paul Philippot. La peinture dans les anciens pays-bas, XVe–XVIe siècles. Paris, 1994, pp. 46–47, 289, ill.

Hans Belting and Christiane Kruse. Die Erfindung des Gemäldes: Das erste Jahrhundert der niederländischen Malerei. Munich, 1994, pp. 222–23, pls. 162–63, date it about 1468; consider it likely that Juan Fernando de Velasco, 6th Duke of Frías, acquired the picture when he was in Flanders about 1600.

Paul Eeckhout in Les primitifs flamands et leur temps. Ed. Brigitte de Patoul and Roger van Schoute. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1994, pp. 422–23, ill., ascribes our Adoration to Hugo van der Goes and rejects the reconstruction of Joos's oeuvre from his documented "Communion of the Apostles" in Urbino.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 249, ill.

Paula Nuttall in The Dictionary of Art. Ed. Jane Turner. Vol. 17, New York, 1996, pp. 702–3.

Mark L. Evans in The Dictionary of Art. Ed. Jane Turner. Vol. 20, New York, 1996, p. 781, comments on similarities between the figures of the Virgin and eldest king in our picture and these figures in an Adoration by the Master of the Virgin among Virgins (Gemäldegalerie, Berlin).

Richard C. Trexler. The Journey of the Magi: Meanings in History of a Christian Story. Princeton, 1997, pp. 111, 114, ill., includes our "effeminate black third king" among magi figures in art that "appear all but female in their physiognomy".

Mary Sprinson de Jesús in From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth and Keith Christiansen. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1998, pp. 25, 41, 43, 70–71, 84, 105–6, 302, 397, no. 7, ill. (color, overall and detail), dates it about 1465.

Roland Krischel in Genie ohne Namen: Der Meister des Bartholomäus-Altars. Ed. Rainer Budde and Roland Krischel. Exh. cat., Wallraf-Richartz-Museum. Cologne, 2001, pp. 39, 330, ill., comments on compositional affinities between this Adoration and one in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich, which he ascribes to the "Master of the Saint Bartholomew Altar and assistant (?)".

Catheline Périer-d'Ieteren. Dieric Bouts: The Complete Works. Brussels, 2006, p. 209, mentions this picture in his discussion of Bouts's influence on Joos van Ghent.

Colin Eisler. "From Northern 'Tüchlein' to Tuscan 'Trompe l'Oeil'." Emil Bosshard, Paintings Conservator (1945–2006): Essays by Friends and Colleagues. Ed. Maria de Peverelli et al. Florence, 2009, p. 38, fig. 2.

Sophie Scully and Christine Seidel. "A Tüchlein by Justus van Ghent: The Adoration of the Magi in The Metropolitan Museum of Art Re-Examined." Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 8 (Winter 2016), figs. 1 (color), 4 (x-radiograph), 5a (horizontal thread angle map), 5b (vertical thread angle map), 6 (reverse during 1957 treatment), 7 (color detail), 8 (infrared photograph detail), 9a (infrared reflectogram detail), 9b (color detail), 11, 12 (color photomicrograph details), 13 (color detail) [DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2016.8.1.3].

Master Paintings & Sculpture Part I. Sotheby's, New York. January 28, 2021, p. 46, p. 47 n. 8, under no. 7.

Francesca Bottacin. Giusto di Gand e la Comunione del Duca d'Urbino. Padua, 2021, pp. 75, 77–79.

Erik Eising in Hugo van der Goes: Between Pain and Bliss. Ed. Stephan Kemperdick and Erik Eising. Exh. cat., Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Berlin, 2023, pp. 35–36.

Maryan W. Ainsworth in Hirmer Verlag. Hugo van der Goes: Between Pain and Bliss. Ed. Stephan Kemperdick and Erik Eising. Exh. cat., Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Berlin, 2023, pp. 200, 202–3, no. 23, ill. p. 201, fig. 2, (color, overall, geometric scheme of the composition, and detail).