References G. F. Waagen. "Nachträge zur Kenntniss der altniederländischen Malerschulen des 15ten und 16ten Jahrhunderts." Kunstblatt no. 41 (August 24, 1847), p. 163, describes this painting as in the collection of the elder Nieuwenhuys, Brussels, and recently acquired by him from the Van Hal collection, Antwerp; attributes it to Jan van Eyck, but comments on the disturbing realism of the figure types, which he does not find elsewhere in Jan's oeuvre.Die Malerschule Hubert's van Eyck nebst deutschen Vorgängern und Zeitgenossen . 2, Berlin, 1858, p. 174, attributes it to Hubert van Eyck and says he does not know its present owner.Les anciens peintres flamands . 1, Brussels, 1862, p. 99, say that Waagen assures them that an "Annunciation" by Jan van Eyck was in the collection of Nieuwenhuys at Brussels and incorrectly identify a painting in the 1854 sale of Joly de Bammeville as a copy of this picture.The Early Flemish Painters . 2nd ed. London, 1872, p. 120, mention again the "Annunciation" cited by Waagen, but associate it incorrectly with the "Annunciation" by Jan van Eyck at St. Petersburg (now National Gallery, Washington).Von Eyck bis Bruegel: Studien zur Geschichte der Niederländischen Malerei . Berlin, 1916, p. 21, mentions it as a work by Petrus Christus in a private collection, Paris.Die altniederländische Malerei . 1, Berlin, 1924, p. 158.Letter from Duveen Paris to Duveen New York . February 26, 1926, discuss this picture, apparently recently purchased by Ally (Allen) Loebl and sold to Philip Lehman, and the possible financial involvement in purchase/sale offered to the Duveen firm by Loebl.Letter . February 4, 1926, says he is convinced it is by Christus although in many respects it is close to the work of Jan van Eyck.in The Michael Friedsam Collection . [completed 1928], p. 132, ascribes it to Christus under the inspiration of Jan van Eyck and mentions a drawing of the Annunciation by Jan in Wolfenbuttel; comments that this work is "not mentioned in the literature," with the exception of Ref. Friedländer 1924.International Studio 89 (January 1928), ill. p. 28, as a recently discovered work by Petrus Christus.American Magazine of Art 21 (January 1930), p. 34, ill. p. 38, ill. p. 30.Pantheon 5 (1930), p. 36, ill. p. 33.Art Digest 7 (November 15, 1932), p. 5, ill.Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 27, section 2 (November 1932), pp. 14–16, ill., attribute it to Christus, observing that it "fits best into the scheme of the artist's development if it is considered to be a comparatively early work, strongly under the influence of the Van Eycks".Lecture . 1932, quotes Hans Swarzenski [see Ref. 1932] and agrees with him in ascribing it to Hubert van Eyck.Letter . 1933, on the basis of the iconography and style calls it a work in the early Van Eyck style, probably to be ascribed to Hubert van Eyck; rejects the attribution to Christus because the iconography seems to be too early for him, and notes similarities to the Broederlam altarpiece in Dijon which Hubert could have known in Ypres.Art Bulletin 17 (December 1935), pp. 433–73, figs. 1, 5, 8 (overall and details), attributes it to Hubert van Eyck towards the very end of his career, finding its closest stylistic parallel in the "Three Maries at the Tomb" (Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam), which he also ascribes to Hubert; considers this "exterior type" of Annunciation archaic as opposed to the more modern type (e.g., the Merode altarpiece) in which the events are staged within a domestic or ecclesiastical interior; also emphasizes the oblique view of the building as an archaic feature and places the work "certainly prior to the Annunciation in the Ghent altarpiece and hardly much later than the Merode altarpiece"; notes that the juxtaposition of gothic and romanesque buttresses signifies the antithesis of the Old and New Testaments.Meisterwerke europäischer Malerei in Amerika . Vienna, 1935, p. 333, pl. 122 [English ed., "Masterpieces of European Painting in America," New York, 1939, p. 317, pl. 122], as by Christus.Niederländische Malerei . Berlin, 1935, pp. 10–11, as by Christus.in "De vlaamsche schilderkunst tot ongeveer 1480." Geschiedenis van de vlaamsche kunst . Antwerp, 1936, p. 182, as closely related to the work of Jan van Eyck.Art Bulletin 18 (December 1936), pp. 505–7, 513, 519, fig. 30.Art Bulletin 19 (June 1937), pp. 220–41, figs. 1, 3 (diagram of perspective construction), refutes Panofsky's attribution to Hubert and, judging from a photograph, ascribes it to Petrus Christus, probably after a lost original by Hubert; observes that the architecture shows the mastery of the laws of perspective which we associate with Christus, and that the Van Eycks would "without doubt have been incapable of this . . . accomplishment"; dates it not much later than Christus's Berlin altar wings of 1452.Pantheon 19 (1937), p. 117 n. 1.Die altniederländische Malerei . 14, Leiden, 1937, pp. 77–78, 80, finds Panofsky's attribution to Hubert unconvincing and retains his attribution to Christus.Jahrbuch der königlich preuszischen Kunstsammlungen 58 (1937), p. 157 n. 1, no. 12, as a late work by Christus based on an early Eyckian composition that is now lost.Art Criticism from a Laboratory . Boston, 1938, pp. 195, 251–52, figs. 118, 119 (shadowgraph detail of angel), attributes it to Petrus Christus and dates it tentatively in the 1450s; suggests that it derives from an "Annunciation" by Jan van Eyck (Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid) that he dates long after 1426, in which the Virgin holds a book and the angel points up.Art Bulletin 20 (December 1938), pp. 419–42, fig. 5, replies to Beenken [see Ref. 1937], reaffirming his own attribution to Hubert van Eyck.Burlington Magazine 72 (1938), p. 147.Dieric Bouts und seine Schule . Berlin, 1938, p. 57, no. 22, lists it with works of Christus, noting that he has not seen the original.Le Maître de Flémalle et les frères van Eyck . Brussels, 1939, pp. 23–24, 48–49 n. 51, fig. 146, finds the attribution to Hubert doubtful but sees the influence of Campin, especially of his "Marriage of the Virgin" (Prado, Madrid).Space in Medieval Painting and the Forerunners of Perspective . New York, 1940, pp. 202–4, comments that, using a photograph of this painting, she was not able to obtain the same convergence of orthogonals that Beenken did in his perspective drawing [see Ref. Beenken 1937] and thus thinks that Hubert's authorship of our picture cannot be discounted on the grounds that the accuracy of the perspective would have been beyond his capabilities.Letter to Margaretta Salinger . October 20, 1943, says he has not reached a definite conclusion regarding the attribution of the painting, but is certain that it is neither by Christus nor Hubert or Jan van Eyck.Letter . April 12, 1946, calls it a very characteristic work of Petrus Christus.The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings . New York, 1947, pp. 13–16, ill., suggest an attribution to Jan van Eyck in his early period, perhaps in collaboration with helpers in his workshop, observing that it does not seem like a copy, and surely not a copy by Petrus Christus.Untersuchungen zu Rogier van der Weyden und Jan van Eyck . Stuttgart, 1948, pp. 102, 107, pl. 115, as a copy by Petrus Christus after an original painted after 1425 by Jan van Eyck.Art Bulletin 31 (June 1949), pp. 140–42, doubts this is an early work by Jan, finding it too unlike his other generally accepted early works; feels it should be catalogued instead as by an unknown Flemish painter of about 1420–30; comments that the proportions of the painting "are strange and its upper ending is decidedly unsatisfactory" and suggests that the panel "was originally much higher, possibly ending in an irregular upper edge like the Broederlam panels in Dijon and that like them it was part of a larger unit".Art Quarterly 13 (Summer 1950), pp. 188, 194 n. 11, states that he has not seen the original, but that the composition "undoubtedly must be credited to Hubert van Eyck".Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 9 (May 1951), pp. 227–28, ill., as by Jan van Eyck and helpers.Jan van Eyck . New York, 1952, pp. 24–25, 275, no. 3, pls. 7 (detail) and 8, catalogues it with works of Hubert but admits that he has not seen the original and "is not in a position to give an opinion as to the hand that painted it"; considers it stylistically more advanced than "The Three Maries at the Sepulchre" (Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam) but of an earlier design than "The Adoration of the Lamb" of the Ghent altarpiece; believes the composition was cut at the top.Revue des arts 4 (December 1952), p. 199.Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance . London, 1952, pp. 116–18, pl. 10b (detail), discusses the symbolism of the ape that appears as a sculptural element on the right side of the doorway.Art Treasures of the Metropolitan: A Selection from the European and Asiatic Collections of The Metropolitan Museum of Art . Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1952, p. 226, no. 92, colorpl. 92.Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character . Cambridge, Mass., 1953, vol. 1, pp. 133–34, 226, 230–32, 278, 305, 412 n. 3 (to p. 133), p. 451 n. 2 (to p. 231); vol. 2, pl. 152.The Van Eyck Problem . London, 1954, p. 86.Art Bulletin 37 (September 1955), pp. 205, 222, comments on the dissimilar figure types in this work and in "The Three Maries at the Tomb" and finds it unlikely that these two panels are by the same artist.Early Netherlandish Painting: From van Eyck to Bruegel . English ed. [first ed. 1916]. New York, 1956, p. 15, attributes it to Petrus Christus.Van Eyck problemen . Utrecht, 1957, p. 93 n. 3.Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York . Utrecht, 1960, pp. 36–38, 109, fig. 3, as by a 15th-century artist working after Eyckian models, but considerably later.Flemish Painters, 1430–1830 . New York, 1960, vol. 1, pp. 12, 30–31; vol. 2, pl. 26, as by the New York Annunciation in a Porch Painter.Art Bulletin 46 (March 1964), pp. 100–101.Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst . 1, Gütersloh, Germany, 1966, pp. 60, 213, fig. 115 [English ed., Greenwich, Conn., 1971, pp. 49–50, fig. 115].The Enclosed Garden: The Tradition and the Image in Seventeenth-Century Poetry . Madison, 1966, pp. 48, 98, fig. 17, discusses the symbolism of the unmended wall.in "The van Eycks—Petrus Christus." Early Netherlandish Painting . 1, New York, 1967, pp. 89, 102–4, 110 n. 67, pl. 95.Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 29 (1967), pp. 91–92, 95, pl. 65.Northern Painting from Pucelle to Bruegel . New York, 1968, pp. 89–90, ill., notes that of all works attributed to Hubert this one is the most archaic and thus most likely to be the work of a master who died in 1426; adds that it is in sharp stylistic opposition to other works attributed to him, such as the MMA diptych (33.92ab) and "The Three Maries at the Tomb".in L'opera completa dei Van Eyck . Milan, 1968, p. 99, no. 35, ill. p. 99 and colorpl. 61.Art Bulletin 50 (June 1968), pp. 184–87, fig. 1, rejects Panofsky's attribution to Hubert van Eyck, reattributing it to Petrus Christus between about 1440 and 1444; contends there is no parallel in Flemish panel painting in style, conception, or compositional type before 1430; feels the gestures of the Virgin and Angel presuppose a knowledge of Jan van Eyck's grisaille Annunciation panels in the Thyssen collection and on the exterior wings of the Dresden altarpiece, all dating from the mid-1430s.Early Netherlandish Triptychs: A Study in Patronage . Berkeley, 1969, p. 10, fig. 6.in Galleria degli Uffizi. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Art . 5, New York, 1969, pp. 403–4, ascribes it tentatively to Hubert van Eyck.in "Charles D. Cuttler, 'Northern Painting From Pucelle to Bruegel . . .'." Art Bulletin 52 (March 1970), p. 204, attributes it to Christus.in Letter . February 23, 1971, writes that he is absolutely convinced that this work is by Christus.The Ghent Altarpiece and the Art of Jan van Eyck . Princeton, 1971, pp. 171–76, 180, fig. 179, illustrates this painting as "Jan van Eyck (copy)" but in the text suggests that it is a work of Jan's from his earliest years with the Burgundian court; calls the panel a fragment, apparently originally the left wing of a triptych, with the church building certainly continuing into an adjoining architecture which spread over at least the central panel of the triptych; suggests that the now missing upper section may have been gold ground as in Broederlam's Annunciation at Dijon; believes the compositional source was Italian, "undoubtedly a painting coming from the Giotto tradition".Letter . February 20, 1971, says that he would call it "Close follower of Jan van Eyck (Petrus Christus?)".Petrus Christus . Utrecht, 1974, pp. 39, 42, 52–56, 71, 73, 78–79, 98, no. 1, fig. 1, as almost certainly by Christus, but the earliest example of his practice of "wholesale borrowing," thus the Eyckian appearance; states that it was cut down on all sides, especially at the top, and that it may have been the right wing of a triptych; sees the figures as hybrids of Jan's Thyssen and Dresden grisaille panels.Burlington Magazine 117 (October 1975), pp. 676–77.Simiolus 8, no. 1 (1975/76), pp. 31–33.Art Bulletin 59 (March 1977), p. 141, finds Schabacker's views about this picture sensible, "although a dexter placement of an Annunciation would be highly unusual".Netherlandish Drawings of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries . Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. The Hague, 1978, p. 2.Art Bulletin 58 (March 1978), pp. 23–27, fig. 1, accepts the attribution to Petrus Christus; discusses the symbolism of the garden, wall, paths, and stepping stone, and suggests new meanings for these elements of the composition.Van Eyck . Bologna, 1979, pp. 28–29, colorpl. 2, ascribes it to Hubert van Eyck.Hubert and Jan van Eyck . New York, 1980, pp. 355–56, ill., observes that it has sometimes been attributed to Hubert but is more likely to be by Petrus Christus.The Metropolitan Museum of Art . New York, 1980, pp. 185–86, 188, 194, 216, fig. 358 (color).Storia dell'arte no. 38 (1980), p. 161.The Window in Art . New York, 1981, pp. 127–29, ill., tentatively ascribes it to Petrus Christus about 1440 and notes that there are "hidden references to the Bridegroom in its windows".Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 67 (April 1981), pp. 91, 97, 99, 101–2, 116 n. 49, fig. 28, remarks that "generally scholars agree that it is a copy or a free interpretation of a lost work by either Hubert or Jan van Eyck, dating from before 1430".The Critical Historians of Art . New Haven, 1982, pp. 198–99, pl. 71.Drawing 5 (May–June 1983), pp. 8–9, fig. 8.in Liber Amicorum Herman Liebaers . Brussels, 1984, p. 468.Der Einfluß niederländischer Tafelmalerei des 15. Jahrhunderts auf die Kunst der benachbarten Rheinlande am Beispiel der Verkündigungsdarstellung in Köln, am Niederrhein und in Westfalen (1440–1490) . Cologne, 1987, pp. 169, 171, 177, 235, 266 n. 102, p. 275 n. 170, p. 286 n. 256, p. 313 n. 524, pp. 333–34 n. 749, p. 348, pl. 4.in The Metropolitan Museum of Art: The Renaissance in the North . New York, 1987, pp. 10, 22–23, ill. (color).Bearers of Meaning: The Classical Orders in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance . Princeton, 1988, pp. 143, 243, fig. 86, dates it about 1440.Van Eyck: Die Begründer der altniederländischen Malerei . German ed. [English ed. 1994]. Munich, 1989, pp. 174–75, fig. 104, illustrates it as by "Hubert van Eyck(?)" but notes that it has also been associated with Petrus Christus; observes that the painting's condition and the fact that the panel has been cut at the top makes attribution difficult.Petrus Christus: His Place in Fifteenth-Century Flemish Painting . University Park, Pa., 1990, pp. 45, 65–66, 76–79, 81, 95 n. 21, p. 102 n. 42, fig. 69.in Flemish Paintings in America: A Survey of Early Netherlandish and Flemish Paintings in the Public Collections of North America . Antwerp, 1992, p. 335, no. 235, ill.Revue de l'art no. 99 (1993), p. 84, questions Upton's attribution of this panel to Christus.in Stefan Lochner, Meister zu Köln . Exh. cat., Wallraf-Richartz-Museum. Cologne, 1993, p. 270.Art Bulletin 75 (March 1993), p. 177, finds it hard to defend Upton's attribution of this picture to Christus and its late dating.Petrus Christus: Renaissance Master of Bruges . Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1994, pp. 80, 117–25, 179, 182, no. 10, ill. (color), and figs. 128–32 (x-radiograph and infrared reflectogram details), calls it "Attributed to Petrus Christus" and notes that only the artist's working method in this case can reliably solve problems of attribution; observes that a recent Mylar tracing confirms that the composition was simply an obliquely constructed scene without perspectival accuracy; states that the panels run horizontally, indicating that the painting is a fragment of a larger composition.Burlington Magazine 136, no. 1098 (September 1994), pp. 639–40, notes that this panel "took its place rather comfortably with the other Christus paintings" in the exhibition.Art & Antiques 17, no. 5 (1994), p. 78, ill. p. 74 (color).in Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Dendrochronological Analysis of Panels Attributed to Petrus Christus." Petrus Christus: Renaissance Master of Bruges . Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1994, p. 215.Umení/The Art 42, no. 4–5 (1994), pp. 413–14, ill.Van Eyck and the Founders of Early Netherlandish Painting . London, 1994, pp. 43, 174, fig. 104 [German ed. 1989].Petrus Christus in Renaissance Bruges: An Interdisciplinary Approach . New York, 1995, pp. 206–7.Petrus Christus in Renaissance Bruges: An Interdisciplinary Approach . New York, 1995, p. 7.Bulletin monumental 153–I (1995), p. 99, notes that as a result of Peter Klein's dendrochronological analysis of this panel we can definitively dismiss earlier attributions of the picture to Hubert or Jan van Eyck.Petrus Christus in Renaissance Bruges: An Interdisciplinary Approach . New York, 1995, pp. 153, 161, using dendrochronological analysis, dates the panel, plus ten years of storage, at 1442.Kunstchronik 48, no. 3 (March 1995), p. 101, found this panel and the Cleveland Museum's "Saint John the Baptist in the Wilderness" quite different from the "authentic works" in the exhibition.Renaissance Quarterly 49, no. 4 (Winter 1996), p. 910, is unconvinced by the attribution of this panel to Christus, finding both its underdrawing and drapery style quite different from those in the Frankfurt "Madonna and Saints" to which Ainsworth compares it.in The Dictionary of Art . 7, New York, 1996, p. 239, dates it about 1450.Burlington Magazine 140 (December 1998), p. 854.in From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art . Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1998, pp. vii, 11, 69, 100–102, no. 5, ill. (color, and black and white diagram identifying plants), dates the picture about 1450 and identifies twelve varieties of plants in the landscape; observes that the particular flowering plants shown would not have been in bloom on March 25, the date of the Annunciation.Early Netherlandish Painting at the Crossroads: A Critical Look at Current Methodologies . New York, 2001, pp. 106–7, pl. 10 (color).Early Netherlandish Painting at the Crossroads: A Critical Look at Current Methodologies . New York, 2001, pp. 79–80, supports Ainsworth's "realignment of this panel within the oeuvre of Petrus Christus" and her view that it is a fragment of a larger composition [see Ref. Ainsworth 1994]; observes that "only the accumulation of [technical] data . . . could have dislodged the enormous weight of previouis opinion".Early Netherlandish Paintings: Rediscovery, Reception and Research . English ed. Amsterdam, 2005, p. 215, fig. 119 [Dutch ed., "'Om iets te weten van de oude meesters'. De Vlaamse Primitieven—herontdekking, waardering en onderzoek," Nijmegen, 1995].Only in America: One Hundred Paintings in American Museums Unmatched in European Collections . Milan, 2006, pp. 30–31, 235, ill. (color).
Add to My Met Gallery
Print
List View
Enlarge
Zoom