The Annunciation

The Artist: For a biography of Petrus Christus, see the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History.

The Painting: This Annunciation departs from conventional depictions of the theme in early Netherlandish painting; the outdoor setting, bird’s-eye point of view, and the placement of the Virgin in a church doorway are unusual features.[1] Additionally complicating the understanding of the original appearance of this painting is the fact that it is a fragment (Ainsworth 1994, 2001 and Technical Notes). The right edge of the painting is original and the bottom edge possibly as well (although quite damaged and overpainted), but the left and top edges have been cut down. The loss of a horizon view at the top left and the truncated architecture suggest that the painting was probably taller than it is now, perhaps as much as 14.2 centimeters (see Technical Notes). Furthermore, the four planks making up the painting run horizontally instead of vertically, indicating that the painting most likely extended beyond its left edge.

One can only imagine what the missing portions must have contributed to the whole. There are a few remaining examples that offer possibilities for consideration. The Annunciation and Visitation of 1394–99 (Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon) by Melchior Broederlam for the Chartreuse of Champmol and the Miracle of the Rod and the Marriage of the Virgin of about 1440 attributed to the Master of Flémalle (Museo del Prado, Madrid; see figs. 1 and 2 above) show horizontal format compositions depicting two sequential scenes within a setting of obliquely angled architecture. Furthermore, there is the Legend of Saint Joseph of ca. 1418–32 from the Circle of Jacques Daret, a follower of the Master of Flémalle, (Sainte-Catherine Church, Hoogstraten; fig. 3) that brings together five main scenes and two subsidiary ones in a long horizontal presentation. Here again the settings consist of obliquely angled buildings viewed from above, each truncated to allow space for the adjacent scene. Taking these examples into account, it is possible that The Met’s Annunciation may have been the right-most scene of an extended narrative that included other episodes from the life of the Virgin. Perhaps an additional point in favor of this suggestion is the Boederlam example of the Annunciation mentioned above, and another Annunciation (fig. 4) linked to the Miracle of the Rod and the Marriage of the Virgin. In both of these Annunciations, the Angel Gabriel approaches the Virgin Mary from outside of the building in which she sits comfortably reading her devotional text. Although the Virgin in The Met’s painting is standing with her book in hand instead of seated, there is the same sense of expectation engendered by the distance between the two figures—one placed outside and one inside—and the imminent announcement of Gabriel to the Virgin that she will bear the son of God.

The seemingly spare depiction of the Annunciation is enriched by numerous details of the iconographic program. Mary is portrayed not only as the Virgin Annunciate, but also as the personification of the church (Panofsky 1935, Ward 1968, Russell 1978, Ainsworth 1994). The architecture, which is embellished with the locally prevalent Bruges detail of the acanthus leaves over the doorway arch, presents symbolically significant features. The Romanesque section to the proper left of the Virgin indicates the Old Testament era, sub legum, with its two porphyry columns above representing Jachin and Boaz from the porch of Solomon’s Temple, the first temple in Jerusalem mentioned in I Kings 7:21 (Panofsky 1953). Beneath the columns is a monkey, symbolic of original sin and recalling the fall from grace of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Acres 2013). Joel Upton (1990, p. 78) suggested that the monkey is at the viewer’s eye level and thus a potent reminder of their own imperfect state. An alternative reading of the architecture was proposed by José Maria Salvador-González (2020), who related patristic, theological and liturgical texts to the representation of “the temple in the Annunciation as a representation of the house of Mary to symbolize the incarnation of God the Son in the womb of Mary.”

The niche directly above the Virgin remains empty, awaiting the image of the Savior who will embody the transition from the old order to the new order. The latter is represented by the architectural details to the Virgin’s right. The New Testament world, under grace or sub gracie, is symbolized by Gothic architecture. A window suggests divine illumination, and two Gothic buttresses are decorated with the cross flower, likewise repeated at the tip of Gabriel’s staff (also held by Gabriel in Jan van Eyck’s Annunciation, National Gallery Art, Washington), denoting Christ’s Crucifixion. Alternatively, Ward (1968) proposed that the sprouting flowers may also signal Christ’s birth growing out of the church.

Amidst a burst of golden rays, a dove, representing the Holy Spirit, descends upon the Virgin at the moment of Incarnation. The portal entrance is the porta coeli or threshold between the exterior and interior space—the spiritual gateway to heaven. Beneath the Virgin’s feet on the step are the initial words of the prayer sung to the Virgin, “Regina C[o]eli L[a]et[are]” (Queen of Heaven Rejoice). Gabriel’s greeting to the Virgin—Ave Maria—is signaled by the letters “A” and “M” on the tiles to the right and left of the Virgin’s feet. Russel (1978) suggested, however, that the route to salvation is not easy. The damaged and worn first step into the church may refer to Isaiah 8:14–15 and further to Paul’s letter to the Romans (9:30–33) in which sanctuary is offered only to those who believe. The unfaithful will stumble and fall, unable to enter the house of God. The interior door is closed, indicating that it is only through the intercession of the Virgin that one gains entrance to the holy realm.

Augmenting the symbolism of the gateway to the holy realm are details of the exterior surroundings. The garden appears untended, and the retaining wall is crumbling, again implying the era “before the advent of Christ, its Restorer” (Russell 1978). Isaiah 58:11–12 foretells of the ruins being rebuilt, foundations being raised, the breach repaired, and the paths renewed. Russell bolstered his interpretations with the exegetical writings of Saint Jerome and Walafrid Strabo, and in the biblical concept of Christ as a gardener. The plants are painted with careful attention to botanical realism, and many carry symbolic meanings, which are intended to enrich the iconography of the scene (Sperling 1998, fig. 5). The most obvious is the lily that stands in a vase next to Mary, in a traditional reference to her purity. Through its details, this Annunciation prophesies the coming of Christ, his sacrifice on the cross, and his Redemption of humankind.

The Attribution and Date: The solid immobility of the figures as well as the nichelike space in which the Virgin is placed evokes sculpture (Ward 1968). Such a depiction relates to two grisaille Annunciations by Jan van Eyck, one of about 1436 in the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid (fig. 6), and the other of 1437 on the exterior wings of the Dresden Triptych in the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden. Scholarly debate over the attribution developed most famously between Erwin Panofsky (1935), who proposed Hubert van Eyck’s authorship, and Hermann Beenken (1937), who instead suggested Petrus Christus for the attribution of the painting. Friedländer concurred with Beenken (1937, 1956, 1967; see also Upton 1972, Schabacker 1974, Ainsworth 1994, and Faries 2001). At various points, the work has been ascribed not only to Hubert van Eyck and Petrus Christus, but also to Jan van Eyck (Waagen 1847, Weale and Salinger 1947, Gellman 1970). As Annunciation scenes of the fifteenth century were usually set in domestic surroundings, the outdoor view initially led some scholars to assign to this painting an early date, more in keeping with the lifetimes of the two Van Eyck brothers (see Technical Notes for dendrochronology). However, the painting demonstrates characteristics of both the Eyckian style and the work of Petrus Christus, more demonstrably fitting into the oeuvre of the latter. While the delicacy and naturalism of the many identifiable plants are familiar from Jan van Eyck’s work, the bulkiness of the triangular-shaped figures is more in keeping with Christus’s known paintings.

Further complicating attempts at attribution is the condition of the painting, which is abraded, most notably in the face of the Virgin (see Technical Notes). However, technical examination done for the 1994 exhibition "Petrus Christus: Renaissance Master of Bruges" indicated that an attribution to Petrus Christus was the most likely (Ainsworth 1994). As is typical of the paintings by Christus—most notably the Virgin Enthroned with Saints Jerome and Francis of 1457 (Städelsches Kunstinstitut und Städtische Galerie, Frankfurt am Main) that exhibits a focal-point perspective on all planes—but uncommon in those of the Van Eycks, the architecture of The Met’s Annunciation is planned in the underdrawing with ruled horizontal and vertical lines in a dry medium. This shows an early attempt by the artist to achieve a convincing space inhabited by the figures, a feature that he pursued in his paintings of the 1450s, perhaps due to knowledge gained from Italian examples (Ainsworth 1994, pp. 43–49). The architecture in The Met painting was drawn before the figures, since the ruled lines for the church façade extend through the lower edges of the Virgin’s draperies, her book, and the faces of the two figures.

As is typical of Christus’s known style, most of the underdrawing is in a liquid medium, applied with brush in a close network of feathery strokes that establish the position of the figures in space and provide shading rather than the volume of forms (Ainsworth1994, pp. 38–55). An area at the lower left of the Virgin’s skirt shows Christus’s idiosyncratic handling and execution: a distinctive, continuous, vertically oriented scribble, rapidly applied, crosses the more carefully angled hatching, as if simply to finish off the form. These characteristics of handling in the underdrawing are also found in Christus’s signed and dated 1457 Frankfurt Virgin Enthroned with Saints Jerome and Francis (Ainsworth 1994, pp. 136–41). The head of Gabriel with its even, parallel hatching suggesting shading is typical of Christus and can be found in the underdrawing of Saint John the Baptist’s head in Saint John the Baptist in a Landscape of about 1445 (Cleveland Museum of Art) and that of John in The Met’s Lamentation 91.26.12 (Ainsworth 1994, p. 38, figs. 33, 34). The seemingly random scribble of lines in a dry medium at the upper left in the landscape is paralleled by those in brush in the upper right in the landscape of the Lamentation about 1445–50 (Musée du Louvre, Paris; Ainsworth 1994, pp. 39, 41, fig. 40).

The sheer bulk of the figures is characteristic of Christus’s treatment. The Virgin and Gabriel are reduced to great pyramidal forms firmly planted within their setting. The massive, repeating v-shaped folds of the Virgin’s draperies are patterned after late Eyckian workshop models, such as the unfinished Maelbeke Madonna (Groeningemuseum, Bruges), the drawing after it in the Graphische Sammlungen, Albertina, Vienna, or the Virgin and Child with Saints Barbara, Elizabeth and Jan Voss (Frick Collection, New York). Despite the very poor condition of the head of the The Met’s Virgin, with her tightly pulled back hair and sharply projecting nose, she resembles the heads of the Virgins in Christus’s 1449 Virgin and Child (formerly Bentinck-Thyssen Collection, Paris, now Koninklike Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, fig. 7) and in the 1452 Annunciation and Nativity wing (Gemäldegalerie, Berlin).

Given all the comparisons cited above, thisAnnunciation is most likely an example of Christus’s early work, painted around 1445 at the beginning of his career, possibly under the influence of a post-Eyckian workshop in Bruges. This would have been at a time when he was experimenting with but had not yet achieved one-point perspective.

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2012; updated Maryan W. Ainsworth 2023

[1] D. M. Robb, “The Iconography of the Annunciation in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,” Art Bulletin 18 (December 1936), pp. 500–518.

Support: The panel is a fragment of a larger support; at some point before entering The Met’s collection the original panel was cut down. The dimensions of the original panel are not known but the remaining panel and the painting itself offer some clues. Narrow wooden strips around all four edges obscure the edges of the panel, however the original edge of the painted composition is preserved on the right side only: there is a barbe and a small amount of unpainted wood margin, the latter mostly trimmed away.[1] The entire length of the bottom edge is damaged and retouched, obscuring any evidence at that edge. The left and top edges are also retouched but do appear to be cut.

The current support consists of four boards with the grain oriented horizontally, of which the topmost is quite narrow relative to the others. From the top, the boards measure approximately 7.7 centimeters, 23.1 centimeters, 24.4 centimeters, and 21.9 centimeters. Typically, the boards used to create panels were symmetrical in their width, with those located on the outside being roughly the same width, thus, it most likely that the original width of the top board was near to that of the bottom board. As noted above, it is unclear whether the bottom board has itself been cut, but compositionally the current edge seems plausible. Assuming that the bottom board is entirely intact, the top plank would have been roughly 14.2 centimeters wider. Extending the height of the composition by that amount would rectify some compositional oddities, namely the absence of a horizon line and the extreme cropping of the building (see Catalogue Entry). It is also possible that there was yet another board above that originally, making the composition even taller, but comparison with other compositions points to the plausibility of the high horizon line and slightly truncated architecture in which the former scenario would have resulted (see Catalogue Entry).

The overall width of the original composition and panel is more difficult to reconstruct from the physical evidence. However, horizontal orientation of planks is far more commonly seen in horizontal compositions than vertical, indicating that the panel could have been cut by a large amount on the left side. Comparison with compositions that include multiple scenes suggests that the panel may have been as much as twice as wide originally; perhaps a multi-scene painting was divided to create two separate paintings (see Catalogue Entry).

At some point after it was cut down but before entering The Met’s collection, the panel was attached to a secondary wood support measuring approximately 4 millimeters thick. It is likely that the original panel was also planed down to some degree to achieve a flat surface; the original panel now measures approximately 5 millimeters thick. The secondary support was then cradled.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a whitish ground, likely containing chalk. Examination with infrared reflectography revealed extensive underdrawing.[2] There appear to be two types of underdrawing, executed in stages (see fig. 8 above). Most readily apparent are bold liquid lines, such as in the Virgin, setting out the contours of her drapery, features, hands, and the open book. This type of underdrawing was also used to add shading to the drapery, with generally parallel hatchmarks that curve around folds but were not neatly applied, sometimes looping at the ends and a bit erratic in appearance. There are occasional instances of crosshatching. These bold liquid lines can also be seen in Gabriel, with a few particularly bold lines at the hem of the robe and the wing. Interestingly, there is very little hatching in Gabriel’s drapery, except for a few parallel lines below the knee. It is possible that the artist anticipated that the opaque red paint of the robe would quickly obscure any underdrawing and so omitted hatching in that passage, as he seems to have done in the Nativity, National Gallery of Art, Washington (1937.1.40; Hand and Wolff, 1986, p. 42, fig. 1).

This same liquid underdrawing is also evident in a few places in the architecture, namely around the doorway. Otherwise, the underdrawing in the architecture is finer and the medium not as obviously liquid; perhaps this was done with a dry medium. Further, much of this type of underdrawing appears to have been made with a straight edge; the many lines that plan out the building extend past forms, as if the primary focus was to establish straight lines and how they relate to eachother in this architecturally complex entryway. The same type of underdrawing seems to have been used to add shading, with hatchmarks applied so densely that they create zones of dark, like in the steps beneath the Virgin’s feet. On close observation, the marks appear to have been applied rapidly; the looped edges show that the artist did not pick up his tool between lines. The shading lines are quite rough in passages, such as the looping circles that create the cast shadow to the lower left of the Virgin, difficult to achieve with a liquid medium. These finer, and seemingly dry, underdrawn lines were also used in the background to create shading, particularly in the area of the tree, the foliage, and the rock wall. Like the parallel hatchmarks in the architecture, these lines also run from lower left to upper right but are even rougher with many loops as if the artist wanted to shade these passages as quickly as possible.

Several of the straight lines for the architecture intersect the underdrawing for the Virgin’s body, running directly through her head, her upper torso, and bottom of her robe, as well as through Gabriel’s face, suggesting that the architecture was planned before the figures were underdrawn. It appears that most of the fine lines were made in a first stage of underdrawing, and then the figures were added using bolder lines and a liquid medium.

The artist may have reinforced or added further shading to some parts of the architecture in a second stage. Using brushes of varying sizes is in keeping with other underdrawings by Christus, and often contour lines are more broadly applied with finer lines used to create hatching. (Ainsworth, 1994, 38)

A few minor shifts were made between the underdrawing and the painting: the bottom of the empty niche above the doorway was enlarged in the painting, the pages of the Virgin’s book were repositioned, and slight adjustments made to hemlines and contours. Also, it appears that the roughly hewn stone step on the ground in front of the building and the vase of lilies were not planned in the underdrawing. The background was not underdrawn in as much detail as the right side of the painting, making it difficult to judge how the composition may have evolved, but it seems that the artist was still working out the location of the path and the position of the rock wall, which extended further to the left in the underdrawing. There also appears to be a form to the far left, possibly a shrub or small tree, that was not painted.

Paint Layers: Assessment of the painting technique and quality is compromised by the condition of the paint layers. Most significantly, much of the painting has suffered from abrasion, more so in some passages than others. Unfortunately, the figures have suffered considerable damage, with losses to the paint layers extending to the white ground in some passages, in particular the face of the Virgin. The Virgin’s eyes are mostly intact, but much of the paint near the center of her face—the flesh around her eyes, nose, and lips—is in poor condition. These losses are currently reconstructed with retouching, the location of which are best identified under magnification but are somewhat apparent in the reflectogram and in photography due to slight differences in the paint color and handling (figs. 9–10). Thus, comparison of these faces with Christus’s painting technique in other paintings is not very helpful. However, it is interesting to note that the appearance of the faces in the x-radiograph, in particular the better-preserved head of Gabriel, is comparable to other paintings by Christus (fig. 11). The x-radiograph reveals the distribution of lead white, which was less affected by abrasion than the modulating glazes. The lead white appears to be more evenly distributed throughout the fleshtones as has been noted in other paintings by Christus, as opposed to the more typical Netherlandish approach of using lead white selectively in the fleshtones. See for example, The Met’s Lamentation 91.26.12 (fig. 3 for that work and Technical Notes).

On the other hand, the hands of the two figures as well as small details of costume and ornament are generally well preserved. The hands, with their brown contours, emphatic brown outlines of the nails, attention to knuckles, and general form, compare well with the hands in the Lamentation. The treatment of the jewels reveals an artist adept at describing textures and using the fall of light to create form and depth. See, for example, the subtle lighting shifts along the embroidered hem of Gabriel’s red robe, as it curves around folds in a convincing manner. Or the crystal staff, created with just minimal paint: highlights and a line of brown paint at the left effectively suggest the translucent handle. The artist did not use any gold in his composition but rendered in paint the golden details as well as the rays emanating from the dove.

The architectural setting and the background have also suffered abrasion to the upper paint layers and glazes, particularly the deepest browns and greens, but the general balance of the scene is seemingly not far from the original, even if aided by the current restoration. The fine details in the stone carving around the archway and the tiles are mostly preserved. It appears that the artist made a change to the background in the upper left. In the x-radiograph a relatively opaque passage, roughly rectangular in shape, is apparent. Located near the top of the hills in the background this may have been related to a more opaque underpaint for a distant hill or even, perhaps, a small corner of sky peeking out beyond the hill and tree that was subsequently painted over with landscape. The reflectogram reveals some wavy underdrawn lines for the far hills, so if this was underpaint for sky or another compositional change, it was altered early in the evolution of the painting.

Sophie Scully 2023

[1] Dendrochronology was performed in 1994 but this must have been done from an x-radiograph, as the edge strips, which prevent measurement of the tree rings at the edges, have not been removed. Dendrochronology from x-radiographs can be less reliable depending on the cut of the wood and its appearance in the x-radiograph, relative to measurements made on the actual edges of the panel.
[2] Infrared reflectography was acquired with an OSIRIS InGaAs near-infrared camera fitted with a 6-element, 150 mm focal length f/5.6–f/45 lens; 900-1700 nm spectral response, December 2022.

Inscription: Inscribed (on step): REGINA C[O]ELI L[A]ET[ARE] (Queen of Heaven, rejoice [Easter antiphon of the Virgin].)

Prince of Charleroi (or Charolais); J. J. van Hal, Antwerp (his estate sale, Snyers, Antwerp, August 23, 1836, no. 80, as by Jan van Eyck, for Fr 2,800 to Nieuwenhuys); C. J. Nieuwenhuys, Brussels (1836–at least 1847); Monsieur Parent, Paris (by 1860); his granddaughter, comtesse O'Gorman, Paris (probably until 1926; sold to Allen Loebl); [Allen Loebl, Paris, 1926; sold to Lehman]; Philip Lehman, New York (1926; sold to Kleinberger); [Kleinberger, New York, 1926; sold for $65,000 to Friedsam]; Michael Friedsam, New York (1926–d. 1931)

New York. F. Kleinberger Galleries. "Flemish Primitives," 1929, no. 3 (lent by Col. Michael Friedsam).

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "The Michael Friedsam Collection," November 15, 1932–April 9, 1933, no catalogue.

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Art Treasures of the Metropolitan," November 7, 1952–September 7, 1953, no. 92.

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Petrus Christus: Renaissance Master of Bruges," April 14–July 31, 1994, no. 10.

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. 5.

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.

H. G. Hotho. Die Malerschule Hubert's van Eyck nebst deutschen Vorgängern und Zeitgenossen. Vol. 2, Die flandrische Malerei des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1858, p. 174, attributes it to Hubert van Eyck and says he does not know its present owner.

Joseph Archer Crowe and Giovanni Battista Cavalcaselle. Les anciens peintres flamands. Vol. 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.

J. A. Crowe and G. B. Cavalcaselle. 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).

Max J. Friedländer. 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.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 1, Die Van Eyck, Petrus Christus. Berlin, 1924, p. 158.

Max J. Friedländer. 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.

Duveen Brothers. 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.

Max J. Friedländer 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.

Malcolm Vaughan. "Paintings by Petrus Christus in America (part 1)." International Studio 89 (January 1928), ill. p. 28, as a recently discovered work by Petrus Christus.

Sidney P. Noe. "Flemish Primitives in New York." American Magazine of Art 21 (January 1930), p. 34, ill. p. 38, ill. p. 30.

"Niederländische Malerei in den Kleinberger Galleries, New-York." Pantheon 5 (1930), p. 36, ill. p. 33.

Bryson Burroughs and Harry B. Wehle. "The Michael Friedsam Collection: Paintings." 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".

"Christus' 'Annunciation' a Friedsam Gem." Art Digest 7 (November 15, 1932), p. 5, ill.

Erwin Panofsky. Lecture. 1932, quotes Hans Swarzenski [see Ref. 1932] and agrees with him in ascribing it to Hubert van Eyck.

"Friedsam Bequest to be Exhibited Next November." Art News 30 (January 2, 1932), p. 13, prints Bryson Burroughs's survey of the Friedsam paintings.

Erwin Panofsky. 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.

Hans Tietze. 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.

Ernst Günter Troche. Niederländische Malerei. Berlin, 1935, pp. 10–11, as by Christus.

Erwin Panofsky. "The Friedsam Annunciation and the Problem of the Ghent Altarpiece." Art Bulletin 17 (December 1935), pp. 433–73, figs. 1, 5, 8 (overall and details), attributes it to Hubert van Eyck toward 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.

J[acques]. Lavalleye in "De vlaamsche schilderkunst tot ongeveer 1480." Geschiedenis van de vlaamsche kunst. Ed. Stan Leurs. Antwerp, 1936, p. 182, as closely related to the work of Jan van Eyck.

David M. Robb. "The Iconography of the Annunciation in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries." Art Bulletin 18 (December 1936), pp. 505–7, 513, 519, fig. 30.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 14, Pieter Bruegel und Nachträge zu den früheren Bänden. Leiden, 1937, pp. 77–78, 80, finds Panofsky's attribution to Hubert unconvincing and retains his attribution to Christus.

Hermann Beenken. "The Annunciation of Petrus Cristus in the Metropolitan Museum and the Problem of Hubert van Eyck." 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.

Hermann Beenken. "Bildnisschöpfungen Hubert van Eycks." Pantheon 19 (1937), p. 117 n. 1.

Wolfgang Schöne. "Über einige altniederländische Bilder, vor allem in Spanien." 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.

Alan Burroughs. 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.

Wolfgang Schöne. 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.

Erwin Panofsky. "Once more 'The Friedsam Annunciation and the Problem of the Ghent Altarpiece'." Art Bulletin 20 (December 1938), pp. 419–42, fig. 5, replies to Beenken [see Ref. 1937], reaffirming his own attribution to Hubert van Eyck.

John Pope-Hennessy. "Recent Research." Burlington Magazine 72 (1938), p. 147.

Charles de Tolnay. 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).

Miriam Schild Bunim. Space in Medieval Painting and the Forerunners of Perspective. PhD diss., Columbia University. 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.

Charles de Tolnay. 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.

Wilhelm R. Valentiner. Letter. April 12, 1946, calls it a very characteristic work of Petrus Christus.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. 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.

Theodor Musper. 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.

Julius S. Held. "Book Reviews: Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta M. Salinger . . ., 1947." 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".

Ludwig Baldass. "The Ghent Altarpiece of Hubert and Jan van Eyck, Part II." 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".

Margaretta Salinger. "An Annunciation by Gerard David." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 9 (May 1951), pp. 227–28, ill., as by Jan van Eyck and helpers.

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.

Ludwig Baldass. 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.

Germain Bazin. "Petrus Christus et les rapports entre l'Italie et la Flandre au milieu du XVe siècle." Revue des arts 4 (December 1952), p. 199.

H. W. Janson Warburg Institute, University of London. 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.

Erwin Panofsky. 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.

Maurice W. Brockwell. The Van Eyck Problem. London, 1954, p. 86.

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 34.

Julius S. Held. "Erwin Panofsky, 'Early Netherlandish Painting, Its Origin[s] and Character'." 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.

Max J. Friedländer. Early Netherlandish Painting: From van Eyck to Bruegel. Ed. F. Grossmann. English ed. [first ed. 1916]. New York, 1956, p. 15, attributes it to Petrus Christus.

Josua Bruyn. Van Eyck problemen. Utrecht, 1957, p. 93 n. 3.

Erik Larsen. 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.

R. H. Wilenski. 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.

Colin Eisler. "Erik Larsen, Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York, 1960." Art Bulletin 46 (March 1964), pp. 100–101.

Gertrud Schiller. Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst. Vol. 1, Inkarnation—Kindheit—Taufe—Versuchung—Verklärung—Wirken und Wunder Christi. Gütersloh, Germany, 1966, pp. 60, 213, fig. 115 [English ed., Greenwich, Conn., 1971, pp. 49–50, fig. 115].

Stanley Stewart. 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.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 1, The van Eycks—Petrus Christus. New York, 1967, pp. 89, 102–4, 110 n. 67, pl. 95.

Lotte Brand Philip Darrell Figgis. "Raum und Zeit in der Verkündigung des Genter Altares." Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 29 (1967), pp. 91–92, 95, pl. 65.

Charles D. Cuttler. 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".

Raymond Bouyer Giorgio T. Faggin in L'opera completa dei Van Eyck. Milan, 1968, p. 99, no. 35, ill. p. 99 and colorpl. 61.

Hans Kauffmann John L. Ward. "A New Look at the 'Friedsam Annunciation'." 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.

Shirley Neilsen Blum. Early Netherlandish Triptychs: A Study in Patronage. Berkeley, 1969, p. 10, fig. 6.

[Luisa Marcucci] and Stanley Ferber in McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Art. Ed. Bernard S. Myers. Vol. 5, New York, 1969, pp. 403–4, ascribes it tentatively to Hubert van Eyck.

Lola B. Malkis Gellman. "Petrus Christus." PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1970, pp. 30–31, 38, 299 n. 76, pp. 486–93, no. 28, fig. 78, rejects the attribution to Christus and comments that "one may investigate the possibility that the same hand, probably a member of Jan's workshop, completed the Frick figures [Virgin and Child with Saints]and produced the Friedsam painting".

Carlo L. Ragghianti Robert A. Koch Ettore Camesasca in "Charles D. Cuttler, 'Northern Painting From Pucelle to Bruegel . . .'." Art Bulletin 52 (March 1970), p. 204, attributes it to Christus.

Charles Sterling. Letter. February 20, 1971, says that he would call it "Close follower of Jan van Eyck (Petrus Christus?)".

Lotte Brand Philip. 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".

Robert A. Koch Bernard Berenson in Letter. February 23, 1971, writes that he is absolutely convinced that this work is by Christus.

Joel M. Upton. "Petrus Christus." PhD diss., Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa., 1972, pp. 56, 93–95, 102, 110, 120 n. 27, p. 127 nn. 60, 61, pp. 167–70, 189–91 nn. 65–71, p. 238 n. 2, pp. 306, 355–62, no. 19, fig. 19, attributes it to Petrus Christus and dates it probably after 1457.

Peter H. Schabacker. 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.

Lorne Campbell Hans Schneider. "Peter H. Schabacker, Petrus Christus." Burlington Magazine 117 (October 1975), pp. 676–77.

Lola B. Gellman. "Peter H. Schabacker, 'Petrus Christus'." Simiolus 8, no. 1 (1975/76), pp. 31–33.

Colin Eisler. "Peter H. Schabacker, 'Petrus Christus'." 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".

John Malcolm Russell. "The Iconography of the Friedsam 'Annunciation'." 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.

K. G. Boon. Netherlandish Drawings of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. The Hague, 1978, p. 2.

Albert Châtelet. Van Eyck. Bologna, 1979, pp. 28–29, colorpl. 2, ascribes it to Hubert van Eyck.

Howard Hibbard. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1980, pp. 185–86, 188, 194, 216, fig. 358 (color).

Elisabeth Dhanens. 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.

Maria Paolini. "Problemi antonelliani–i rapporti con pittura fiamminga." Storia dell'arte no. 38 (1980), p. 161.

Carla Gottlieb. 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".

Ann Tzeutschler Lurie. "A Newly Discovered Eyckian 'St. John the Baptist in a Landscape'." 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".

Michael Podro. The Critical Historians of Art. New Haven, 1982, pp. 198–99, pl. 71.

George Szabo. "Fouquet and Antonello: Reflections on Two Exhibitions." Drawing 5 (May–June 1983), pp. 8–9, fig. 8.

Colin T. Eisler in Liber Amicorum Herman Liebaers. Ed. Frans Vanwijngaerden et al. Brussels, 1984, p. 468.

Introduction by James Snyder in The Metropolitan Museum of Art: The Renaissance in the North. New York, 1987, pp. 10, 22–23, ill. (color).

Barbara Jakoby. 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.

John Onians. 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.

Otto Pächt. 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.

Joel M. Upton. 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.

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, p. 335, no. 235, ill.

Zsuzsanne Urbach in Stefan Lochner, Meister zu Köln. Ed. Frank Günter Zehnder. Exh. cat., Wallraf-Richartz-Museum. Cologne, 1993, p. 270.

Christopher S. Wood. "Book Reviews: . . . Joel M. Upton, 'Petrus Christus: His Place in Fifteenth-Century Flemish Painting . . .'." Art Bulletin 75 (March 1993), p. 177, finds it hard to defend Upton's attribution of this picture to Christus and its late dating.

Albert Châtelet. "Bibliographie critique. Joel M. Ipton [sic for Upton]: 'Petrus Christus, His Place in Fifteenth-Century Flemish Paintings,' 1990." Revue de l'art no. 99 (1993), p. 84, questions Upton's attribution of this panel to Christus.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. 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 .

Otto Pächt. Van Eyck and the Founders of Early Netherlandish Painting. Ed. Maria Schmidt-Dengler. London, 1994, pp. 43, 174, fig. 104 [German ed. 1989].

Peter Klein 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.

Olga Kotková. "Book Reviews: M. W. Ainsworth—M. P. J. Martens. 'Petrus Christus: Renaissance Master of Bruges,' exh. cat., 1994." Umení/The Art 42, no. 4–5 (1994), pp. 413–14, ill.

Lorne Campbell. "New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art: Petrus Christus." 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.

Paul Jeromack. "New Light on Old Masters." Art & Antiques 17, no. 5 (1994), p. 78, ill. p. 74 (color).

Peter Klein. "Dendrochronological Findings of the Van Eyck–Christus–Bouts Group." Petrus Christus in Renaissance Bruges: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth. New York, 1995, pp. 153, 161, using dendrochronological analysis, dates the panel, plus ten years of storage, at 1442 .

Lorne Campbell. "Approaches to Petrus Christus." Petrus Christus in Renaissance Bruges: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth. New York, 1995, p. 7.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Afterthoughts and Challenges to Modern-Day Connoisseurship." Petrus Christus in Renaissance Bruges: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth. New York, 1995, pp. 206–7.

Albert Châtelet. "Bibliographie: Maryan W. Ainsworth with contributions by Maximiliaan P. J. Martens. 'Petrus Christus, Renaissance Master of Bruges,' 1994." 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.

Marta Renger. "Petrus Christus. A Renaissance Artist in Bruges." 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.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 248, ill.

Joel M. Upton in The Dictionary of Art. Ed. Jane Turner. Vol. 7, New York, 1996, p. 239, dates it about 1450.

Charles I. Minott. "Reviews: Maryan W. Ainsworth. 'Petrus Christus: Renaissance Master of Bruges,' exh. cat., 1994." Renaissance Quarterly 49 (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.

Della Clason Sperling 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. 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.

John Oliver Hand. "New York. From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art." Burlington Magazine 140 (December 1998), p. 854.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Commentary: An Integrated Approach." Early Netherlandish Painting at the Crossroads: A Critical Look at Current Methodologies. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth. New York, 2001, pp. 106–7, pl. 10 (color).

Molly Faries. "Reshaping the Field: The Contribution of Technical Studies." Early Netherlandish Painting at the Crossroads: A Critical Look at Current Methodologies. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth. 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".

Till-Holger Borchert. The Age of Van Eyck: The Mediterranean World and Early Netherlandish Painting 1430–1530. Exh. cat., Groeningemuseum, Bruges. Ghent, 2002, p. 23, fig. 16 (color).

Till-Holger Borchert. "Collecting Early Netherlandish Paintings in Europe and the United States." Early Netherlandish Paintings: Rediscovery, Reception and Research. Ed. Bernhard Ridderbos et al. 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].

Pierre Rosenberg. Only in America: One Hundred Paintings in American Museums Unmatched in European Collections. Milan, 2006, pp. 30–31, 235, ill. (color).

Amy Powell. "Caught Between Dispensations: Heterogeneity in Early Netherlandish Painting." Journal of Visual Culture 7, no. 1 (2008), p. 86, fig. 3.

Alfred Acres. Renaissance Invention and the Haunted Infancy. London, 2013, pp. 184, 212 n. 109, fig. 128, discusses the symbolism of the carved monkey on the right pier of the church portal.

Susan Urbach. Early Netherlandish Paintings. London, 2015, vol. 1, pp. 75, 77 n. 26, under no. 4.

José Maria Salvador-González. "The Temple in Images of the Annunciation: A Double Dogmatic Symbol According to the Latin Theological Tradition (6th–15th Centuries)." De Medio Aevo 14 (2020), p. 65, fig. 7 (color).

The frame is from Venice and dates to about 1505 (see figs. 12–15 above). This simple flat painted cassetta frame is made of pine and constructed with its face molding secured to its back with wooden pegs. An ogee sight edge lies within the flat frieze which continues to a step and a larger ogee before the narrow top edge fillet. The surface retains very early paint on a thin ground with worn sgraffitto decoration in blue gray at its centers. Similar corner decoration may have been removed at all four corners when the frame was reduced in size. The frame is similar to the frame in Robert Lehman Collection (1975.1.2107) and to the triptych frame with painted leaf decoration made in Flanders on Saint Anthony of Padua by Ambrosius Benson at the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels (inv. 412a).

Timothy Newbery with Cynthia Moyer 2016; further information on this frame can be found in the Department of European Paintings files

According to Kleinberger records, "an extract on the back of the picture" stated that it was in the collection of Prince de Charleroi / Duc de Bourgogne [unidentified]. This extract is no longer on the reverse of the painting and cannot be found. In a 1926 receipt from Kleinberger Galleries to Michael Friedsam it is stated that the picture was "painted for the Prince de Charleroi, Duc de Bourgogne."