The Annunciation

The Artist: For a biography of Joos van Cleve, see the Catalogue Entry for The Holy Family (32.100.57).

The Subject of the Painting: In a well-appointed domestic interior, the angel Gabriel suddenly appears, interrupting the Virgin in the midst of her daily devotions. As described in the Gospel of Saint Luke (1:26–38), Gabriel has come at God’s behest to announce to Mary that she will conceive and give birth to a son, who will be called Jesus. The dove, or Holy Spirit, descends upon the Virgin at the same moment that Gabriel raises his right hand in blessing. The use of actual gold in the painting is limited to the rays of the dove and the flame of the candle at the upper left. As the room is flooded with natural light from the open window, the purpose of the lit candle is not to provide illumination, but instead to signal the presence of God at the Incarnation.[1]

Although the Virgin’s bedchamber is replete with objects of symbolic significance, just as in Joos’s Holy Family (32.100.57), these are displayed unobtrusively, as if naturally part of a sixteenth-century household setting in Antwerp. Such a robust presentation has a precedent in fifteenth-century painting, namely in the Annunciation of the Merode Altarpiece (56.70a–c), but it never became commonplace. The multiple references of everyday material goods to biblical narratives and doctrines of faith are intended to guide the viewer through his or her devotional meditations. The Virgin kneels at her prie-dieu, reading from a lavishly illustrated Book of Hours (see fig. 3 above). Although difficult to discern, the partially-visible illuminated page therein appears to show a thin tree trunk encircled by a snake next to a naked figure. If so, this could be a reference to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and their sinful acts that would be redeemed by Christ’s Incarnation and sacrifice on the cross at the Crucifixion.

The Virgin’s private worship, likewise, could take place at the house altar behind her. The exterior wings represent Old Testament prophets, while the interior shows the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek, an Old Testament prefiguration of the Last Supper. This house altar is displayed on a wooden cabinet, decorated at the center front with a figure of Moses with the tablets of the Ten Commandments. A further juxtaposition of Old and New Testament references is in the hand-colored woodcut, tacked to the wall, of another image of Moses holding the Ten Commandments beside the chandelier, a symbol of the Virgin (Panofsky 1935, p. 453 n. 32). The depiction of Moses with horns derives from the description of his head as “cornuta” (“horned”) in the Latin Vulgate translation of Exodus 34:29–30, 35, when he returned from receiving the Ten Commandments from God.

The placement of the dove between the Moses print and the Virgin suggests a transition from the era under law, indicated by the Ten Commandments held by Moses, to the era under grace, initiated by the Incarnation (Hand 2004, p. 198).

Allusions to Mary’s chastity and purity are further signaled by the lilies in the vase, and the basin and ewer with the white folded towel. The Virgin’s nuptial bed (called the thalamus virginis), with its fancy tasseled canopy, gold-framed mirror, and casually placed pillow refer as much to a contemporary well-to-do Antwerp residence as they do to the familiar setting for the Annunciation.

An interesting question is the extent to which such a detailed depiction documents actual domestic interiors in Antwerp, or aims mainly to promote Catholic devotional practice at a time when Protestant Reformers were questioning the validity of imagery for religious worship. From documentary evidence, it seems that both may have been intended. Inventories of household goods mention small triptychs that were displayed on top of wooden cabinets or kept within them until they were brought out for use (Jacobs 2012, p. 17). Single-leaf woodcuts,[2] elaborately illuminated prayer books, and paintings were all readily available and staples of the Antwerp art market. The possession and use of such devotional aids, however, must be seen against the growing religious turbulence of the times. As Annette LeZotte has pointed out (LeZotte 2008, p. 120), the threat to Catholic doctrine in Antwerp was dealt with firmly by the prohibition by Emperor Charles V in 1521 of the writings of Martin Luther, the establishment of the Commission of the Inquisition in The Netherlands by Pope Adrian VI in 1522, and, in the same year, the expulsion of the Antwerp Augustinian Order for being sympathetic to Luther’s teachings. In 1525, around the date when The Met’s Annunciation was painted, the first execution for heresy was carried out in Antwerp, and the initial incidents of iconoclasm occurred there.

The Commission or Patron: Although the Annunciation is a popular theme in early Netherlandish painting, The Met’s panel is the only known example in Joos van Cleve’s oeuvre. This fact, as well as the relatively large size, high quality, and considerable care taken with every aspect of its production, suggest that it was a commissioned work (Leeflang 2015, p. 134). The frustrating absence of any visible clues in the painting confound confirmation of this hypothesis. However, one intriguing but currently unverifiable piece of evidence may imply that the Annunciation once had wings that depicted the donors of a triptych comprising this panel. An 1869 catalogue of the collection of Colonel Meyrick of Goodrich Court, Heresfordshire (a previous owner of the Annunciation; see Provenance), exhibited at the South Kensington Museum, London, notes that “shutters…representing a Flemish nobleman, his wife and child, with various saints” were displayed in the same case with the Annunciation. The lack of further details, such as dimensions of the panels, and the disappearance of the “shutters” thereafter in any mention of the Annunciation, leave this matter open to question.[3] Given the iconography of this painting at a time of growing Protestant Reformist views, the patrons were most likely Catholics.

The Attribution and Date: Despite an early attribution to Ludwig Schongauer in an 1896 auction catalogue (see Refs.), Georges Hulin de Loo (1902), followed by W. H. James Weale (1902), set the record straight in their catalogues for the famous Bruges 1902 exhibition—Exposition des primitifs flamands et d'art ancien—in which this painting appeared. Here the Annunciation was assigned to the Master of the Death of the Virgin, who subsequently became universally known as Joos van der Beke alias van Cleve.

For the composition of the Annunciation, Joos must have recalled the panel with this subject in the Altarpiece of the Life of Christ for the Stadtpfarrkirche Sankt Nicolai in Kalkar on which he assisted Jan Joest, his mentor. However, the fully volumetric figures of Gabriel and the Virgin, which comfortably inhabit a well-designed and convincing space, indicate Joos van Cleve’s mature period, about 1525. The Virgin reminds us of the beautifully rendered physiognomy and tender expression of the Virgin in the Virgin and Child, also of about 1525 and in The Met's collection (1982.60.47). In considering not just the sense of movement conveyed by Gabriel, but also the elegance of the figure’s pose, Joos looked again to the examples of Gerard David in Bruges (see discussion for Joos van Cleve, 32.100.57). In particular, he was influenced by the Gabriel in David’s Annunciation of 1506 (50.145.9ab), produced as part of the Cervara Altarpiece, an Italian commission of Vincenzo Sauli. In so doing, he assimilated the Italianate canon of beauty of David’s Gabriel, as well as a notable grace of movement expressed by the figure’s pose and by the elegantly swirling draperies. Even Gabriel’s brocade cope with its decorative jeweled edges and the bluish tone of his alb were inspired by David’s Gabriel.

As noted above, the careful planning that went into the production of this painting from its inception suggests a commissioned work. As is typical of Joos’s mature paintings, the underdrawing was carried out in a spontaneous, sketchy, and very direct manner in a dry material, perhaps black chalk (Ainsworth 1982; Leeflang 2015, p. 40; see fig. 1 and Technical Notes). A color indication on Gabriel’s right sleeve—"wp" for wit paars—indicates pre-planning for the paint stage.[4] Although the figures received the fullest attention at the preliminary underdrawing stage, Joos also carefully planned the placement of all of the objects in the room. It thus remains one of the most important painted examples of what a domestic interior in early-sixteenth-century Antwerp must have looked like, as well as a statement of Catholic doctrine on the eve of the Reformation.

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2018

[1] David M. Robb, “The Iconography of the Annunciation in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,” Art Bulletin 18 (1936), pp. 452–53 n. 32.
[2] The one here of Moses is thought to have been produced by Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen (see Hyatt Mayor 1971).
[3] My thanks to John Hand for alerting me to this exhibition catalogue (Curatorial Files, correspondence of January 30, 2001).
[4] For a discussion of Joos van Cleve’s use of color notations in his paintings, see Leeflang 2015, pp. 55–58.

Support: The support was constructed from four planks of oak, with the grain oriented vertically. The wood planks were originally held with dowels, four of which are evident in the x-radiograph (see fig. 2 above). Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1507 with a more plausible date of 1513 onwards.[1] The wood originated in the Baltic/Polish region.

Examination of the construction of the panel, together with the underdrawing and the painted composition, provides evidence of how the dimensions have been altered. The panel has been trimmed on the left edge only: a barbe and unpainted wood margins are present at the top, right and bottom edges, indicating that the original dimensions of the painting are preserved there and that the panel was prepared in an engaged frame. The panel measures 4 mm thick on average but may have been planed slightly before cradling. A bevel is present on the reverse of the right edge and a thin wood insert was adhered to the beveled edge to make a flat surface for the cradle. The lack of a bevel on the reverse of the left edge further indicates that the panel was trimmed there. The underdrawing, as revealed by infrared reflectography and discussed further below, also includes several lines that must have originally extended further out to the left, such as those that begin to complete the oval of the platter at upper left and the feathers of Gabriel’s wing (fig. 1).

An additional two inches on the left would make the construction of the panel more regular: the planks would be nearly symmetrical in width and arrangement and the middle join would lie at the center of the panel. This would also make the support a perfect square. Finally, an additional two inches on the left would center the painted composition, with the small tabletop altarpiece located at the exact center and Gabriel and the Virgin evenly spaced to either side. Nearly all of Gabriel’s robe would have been included, with the wing only slightly cropped, similar to the cropping of Gabriel in Gerard David’s depiction of Gabriel from the Cervara Altarpiece (see 50.145.9a), a painting which influenced Joos when making the Annunciation (see Catalogue Entry).

At some point the panel suffered a large damage at the lower edge, in the Virgin’s blue robe, and was repaired. A sizable, non-original, insert of wood is clearly visible in the x-radiograph. The appearance of the insert—with its jagged shape at the top, characteristic of broken wood—and its location at a join suggested that the panel had been hit with great force there. Such catastrophic damage pointed to a terrible accident, perhaps even inflicted during a war, rather than storage issues or intentional defacement.

The x-radiograph also revealed the presence of three rows of nails in the panel, evenly spaced at top, middle and bottom, which appear to be hand-wrought and not related to the modern wire nails that attach the cradle. It is unclear if they were part of an earlier structural intervention or date to the original construction of the panel. Crossbars would be extremely unusual for an oak panel of this size. Whatever the purpose of the nails, their presence over time has led to losses on the overlying paint surface and splits in the wood.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a white ground. Examination with infrared reflectography revealed the presence of an extensive underdrawing, executed using a dry medium.[2] The underdrawing set out all important contours: the two figures and their raiment, the furnishing and objects throughout the scene as well as architectural details. The drawing is freehand and lively; the lines indicating the hands of both Gabriel and the Virgin, elegantly elongated, have the undulating energy and grace typical of Joos van Cleve. The artist also established shading with hatchmarks, as in the drapery and bedcoverings, and even indicated the fall of shadows, as in the diagonal shadow falling across the open shutter and the open triptych. The hatchmarks are generally straight diagonals indicating zones of dark, with little suggestion of volume. The hatching varies from controlled parallel diagonals to seemingly rapid lines, occasionally so rapid that they become zigzags.

Analysis of the underdrawing suggests the hand of Joos van Cleve himself. Micha Leeflang has observed a range of underdrawing in her study of the paintings attributed to Joos and his workshop.[3] The underdrawings can generally be divided into two types. On the one hand there are underdrawings that are quite free, executed with confidence but sketchy as may suggest an artist working out his composition on the panel. The second type is more precise, characterized by rigid and regular hatchmarks, reminiscent in appearance to woodcut prints, which has prompted underdrawing in this more graphic style to be known as “woodcut convention.” Leeflang posited that the precision of the woodcut convention underdrawings could both allow the patron to better visualize and approve the design but also, perhaps, guide assistants completing the painting. The underdrawing for the Annunciation seems to align with the first type. One color notation was evident in the infrared reflectogram of the Annuncation: a “wp” or wit-paars in Gabriel’s robe. The presence of a color notation does raise the possibility of workshop involvement, although this could simply be an example of an artist planning his painted composition in the underdrawing (see Catalogue Entry).

The underdrawn contours and shading system were followed closely with paint. The artist only made minor adjustments to contours, as in Gabriel’s scepter, and modified some decorative details, including the bed hangings and tracery beneath the table holding the altar. There is little underdrawing evident in the faces, possibly faint hatches above Gabriel’s eye and the Virgin’s.

Paint Layers: The intricate composition, teeming with magnificent detail, is unified by Joos’s skillful manipulation of light and shadow. Carefully planned in the underdrawing stage, the play of light is considered in every feature of the figures, ornament and architecture, from shadows on furniture to the illumination of pearls. And the direction of the light from upper left to lower right resonates with the position of Gabriel and the Virgin. The figures have a sculptural quality, due in part to the artist’s widespread use of lead white throughout the fleshtones, including some grey for shading, which gives the figures a coolness and solidity. Yet, through skillful manipulation of paint, Joos simultaneously imbued the fleshtones with a sense of earthly vibrancy. The contours are soft, without any firm edges or strong lines. The transitions between light and shadow are tempered with wet-in-wet strokes that appear delicately feathered on close examination, calling to mind the handling in the Virgin and Child (see Technical Notes for 1982.60.47).

The rendering of the decorative elements betrays a range of quality. Some passages are more accomplished, for example the proper left of Gabriel’s robe, which appears simultaneously airy yet heavy and stiff with brocade and jewels. On the other hand, the pearl-studded proper right border of Gabriel’s robe dazzles from a distance, but on closer inspection there is little variation in lighting along the curving border of the robe, the pearls and jewels were painted all in the same manner, as if by rote. The pattern in the brocade does not always follow folds of drapery (see the Virgin’s proper left sleeve). These discrepancies in technique suggest that an assistant may have had a hand in the costumes.

The multitude of fine rays extending out from the dove and the single flame at upper left were applied with mordant gilding, which is now partly abraded, diminishing its effect. The sparing use of gold would have stood out brilliantly against the yellow paint that imitates gold elsewhere in the composition.

Apart from the large damage in the Virgin’s robe the painting remains in good condition. There are small paint losses scattered throughout, and the uppermost glazes, such as delicate browns in faces and in the stained glass windows, are somewhat rubbed. Some glazes may have been lost in the pale pink book cover, which would have better differentiated the book’s cover from the cloth.

The painting is currently undergoing treatment. The Technical Notes and photography will be updated upon completion of the treatment.

Sophie Scully 2020

[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, dated May 12, 1997. The report can be found in the files of the Department of Paintings Conservation. “The youngest heartwood ring was formed out in the year 1496. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1505, more plausible is a felling date between 1509..1511….1515 + x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1507 upwards. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and 2 years for seasoning, as probably usual in the 14th/15th century, a creation is plausible from 1513 upwards.”
[2] Infrared reflectography completed with a Merlin Indigo InGaAs near-infrared camera with a StingRay macro lens customized for the wavelengths covered by the camera, 0.9 to 1.7 microns, April 2014.
[3] See Micha Leeflang, “Joos van Cleve’s 'Adoration of the Magi' in Detroit: Revealing the Underdrawing,” in Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 82, no. 1/2 (2008), pp. 65–66. See also Leeflang 2015, pp. 53–55.

Inscription: Inscribed (background, on predella of altarpiece): ABRAHAM; MELCHICED [Melchizedek]

Francis Douce, London (until d. 1834); Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick, Goodrich Court, Herefordshire (1834–d. 1848); his cousin, Lt. Col. Augustus Meyrick, Goodrich Court (from 1848); ?his son, Gen. A. W. H. Meyrick, Goodrich Court (until about 1872); Mr. W. Twopenny, Woodstock Park, Sittingbourne; Mr. B. M. Twopenny (until 1896; sale, Christie's, London, June 20, 1896, no. 71, as by Martin Schongauer; for £504 to Dowdeswell & Dowdeswell); [Dowdeswell & Dowdeswell, London, from 1896]; Jules Porgès, Paris (by 1902–about 1920, as by the Maître dit de la Mort de Marie or Schongauer); [Kleinberger, Paris and New York]; Michael Friedsam, New York (by 1924–d. 1931)

London. South Kensington Museum. "The Meyrick Collection," 1869, no. 1413 (as Flemish, 15th century, lent by Col. Meyrick).

Bruges. Palais du Gouvernement. "Exposition des primitifs flamands et d'art ancien," June 15–September 15, 1902, no. 276 [in an earlier printing of the catalogue listed as by Martin Schongauer; later printing corrected to Master of the Death of Mary, lent by Jules Porgès].

New York. F. Kleinberger Galleries. "Flemish Primitives," 1929, no. 55 (lent by Michael Friedsam).

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

Hartford, Conn. Wadsworth Atheneum. "Pictures within Pictures," November 9–December 31, 1949, 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. 97.

Pictures by Old Masters of W.E. Biscoe, Esq. Also Important Pictures . . . from Different Sources. Christie's, London. June 20, 1896, no. 71, as by Martin Schongauer.

Georges H. de Loo Palais du Gouvernement, Bruges. Exposition de tableaux flamands des XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles: catalogue critique précédé d'une introduction sur l'identité de certains maîtres anonymes. Ghent, 1902, p. 74, no. 276, as by the Master of the Death of the Virgin (Joos van der Beke dit Van Cleve).

W. H. James Weale. Exposition des primitifs flamands et d'art ancien, Bruges. Première section: tableaux. Catalogue. Exh. cat., Palais du Gouvernement. Bruges, 1902, p. 105, no. 276, as by the Master of the Death of the Virgin, but apparently an earlier printing of the same catalogue lists it as by Martin Schöngauer; notes (p. XXX) that all attributions given in the catalogue are those provided by owners.

[E.] Firmenich–Richartz in Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler. Ed. Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker. Vol. 3, Leipzig, 1909, p. 217, dates it in his late period, lists it in the collection of Jules Porgès [Paris].

Max J. Friedländer. Von Eyck bis Bruegel: Studien zur Geschichte der Niederländischen Malerei. Berlin, 1916, p. 186, lists it with the works of Joos van Cleve.

Martin Conway. The Van Eycks and Their Followers. London, 1921, p. 403, notes that while the general design of our painting is borrowed from Jan Joest's panel in Calcar [Church of Saint Nicholas] the figure of Gabriel owes much to Gerard David's Annunciation at Sigmaringen [collection Hohenzollern–Sigmaringen, now MMA 50.145.9ab].

Friedrich Winkler. Die altniederländische Malerei: Die Malerei in Belgien und Holland von 1400–1600. Berlin, 1924, p. 249, as by Joos.

William B. M'Cormick. "Michael Friedsam Collection." International Studio 80 (November 1924), p. 122, ill.

Ludwig von Baldass. Joos van Cleve, der Meister des Todes Mariä. Vienna, 1925, p. 25, no. 48, fig. 51, as by Joos, about 1525.

Max J. Friedländer in The Michael Friedsam Collection. [completed 1928], p. 139, as by Joos van Cleve, who is "identical with the so-called 'Master of the Death of the Virgin'"; places it in his later period, about 1530.

E. M. Sperling. Catalogue of a Loan Exhibition of Flemish Primitives. Exh. cat., F. Kleinberger Galleries, Inc., New York. New York, 1929, p. 170, no. 55, ill.

The Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 13, 14th ed. London, 1929, p. 147.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 9, Joos van Cleve, Jan Provost, Joachim Patenier. Berlin, 1931, p. 130, no. 25, dates it about 1525.

Bryson Burroughs and Harry B. Wehle. "The Michael Friedsam Collection: Paintings." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 27, section 2 (November 1932), pp. 24–25, no. 34, ill.

"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. "The Friedsam Annunciation and the Problem of the Ghent Altarpiece." Art Bulletin 17 (December 1935), pp. 450–53 n. 32, fig. 28, discusses the symbolism of numerous objects in this painting, as well as the juxtaposition of Old and New Testament figures and narratives; notes that the small altarpiece in the background represents the Adoration of the Magi, an event after the Annunciation, while its shutters represent the Meeting of Abraham and Melchisedek, a prefiguration of the Last Supper; observes that our panel "almost teems with intricately symbolical details, so that the overdevelopment of fifteenth century tendencies which characterizes the 'mannerism' of Joos van Cleve and his Antwerp contemporaries can be observed not only in style, but also in iconography" .

G. M. A. R. "Notes." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 1 (December 1942), ill. on front cover and inside front cover (color, overall and detail), provides brief biographical notes on the artist.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 135–37, ill., date it about 1525; compare the design of our picture to the Annunciation panel in Jan Joest's altarpiece in Calcar (Church of Saint Nicholas), which Joos van Cleve helped to paint.

Julius S. Held. "A Tondo by Cornelis Engebrechtsz." Oud-Holland 67, no. 1 (1952), pp. 236–37 n. 15, notes that a small tondo comparable to Memling's Salvator Mundi and Virgin and Child [MMA 32.100.54 and 32.100.59] hangs over the head end of the bed.

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 54.

Erik Larsen. Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York. Utrecht, 1960, pp. 92, 131, fig. 34, dates it about 1510, close to Joos's years of appprenticeship with Jan Joest.

A. Hyatt Mayor. Prints & People: A Social History of Printed Pictures. New York, 1971, unpaginated, fig. 90 (detail), suggests that the hand-colored woodcut of Moses on the back wall is a lost print by Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen; notes that "before about 1700 prints were commonly tacked (or fixed with wax) to walls".

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 9, part 1, Joos van Cleve, Jan Provost, Joachim Patenier. New York, 1972, p. 55, no. 25, pl. 47.

Alan M. Fern. "The Print as Subject." Baltimore Museum of Art Annual 4, part 2 (1972), pp. 102–3, ill.

Elga Lanc. "Die religiösen Bilder des Joos van Cleve." PhD diss., Universität Wien, 1972, p. 131, fig. 142.

John Oliver Hand. "Joos van Cleve: The Early and Mature Works." PhD diss., Princeton University, 1978, pp. 196–98, 303, no. 54, fig. 64, dates it about 1525; comments that the easy use of objects loaded with symbolic meaning suggests a certain standardization of the iconographic vocabulary.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "Underdrawings in Paintings by Joos van Cleve at the Metropolitan Museum of Art." Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Ed. Roger van Schoute and Dominique Hollanders-Favart. Colloque 4, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1982, pp. 161–63, 166 nn. 7–9, pls. 80–83 (overall and infrared reflectogram details), discusses the fluid underdrawing which is followed in the painted layers with minor adjustments.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "New Insights into Joos van Cleve as a Draughtsman." Essays in Northern European Art Presented to Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann on His Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. Anne-Marie Logan. Doornspijk, The Netherlands, 1983, p. 16, finds in the similarities in underdrawing between the present work and Joos's Crucifixion altarpiece [MMA 41.190.20a–c] compelling evidence of the same hand at work.

Susan Koslow. "The Curtain-Sack: A Newly Discovered Incarnation Motif in Rogier van der Weyden's 'Columba Annunciation'." Artibus et Historiae no. 13 (1986), pp. 28, 32, fig. 30, interprets the curtain-sack as an analogy of form representative of the Incarnation, when the Word became flesh.

Introduction by James Snyder in The Metropolitan Museum of Art: The Renaissance in the North. New York, 1987, pp. 50, 52, ill. (color), sees the affluent domestic interior as a reflection of the prosperity of Antwerp, where the artist worked.

Martha Wolff. "An Image of Compassion: Dieric Bouts's Sorrowing Madonna." Museum Studies 15, no. 2 (1989), pp. 115–16, ill., comments on the numerous aids to private devotion used in 15th– and 16th–century Flanders that are depicted in this painting.

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. 432, no. 280, ill.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 269, ill.

Ilja M. Veldman in Die Maler Tom Ring. Ed. Angelika Lorenz. Exh. cat., Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte. Münster, 1996, vol. 1, pp. 72–73, ill.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "A Meeting of Sacred and Secular Worlds." 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. 69, 92, 114, 118, 360, 364–65, no. 97, ill. (color), dates it about 1525, noting that Joos must have been familiar with David's Annunciation from the Cervara Altarpiece of 1506 (MMA 50.145.9ab).

Henk van Os in Netherlandish Art in the Rijksmuseum, 1400–1600. Ed. Jan Piet Filedt Kok et al. Vol. 1, Zwolle, The Netherlands, 2000, p. 11, fig. 1 (color), reproduces objects similar to those decorating the Virgin's bedroom here.

Michaela Krieger in Genie ohne Namen: Der Meister des Bartholomäus-Altars. Ed. Rainer Budde and Roland Krischel. Exh. cat., Wallraf-Richartz-Museum. Cologne, 2001, p. 239 n. 64.

Dagmar Eichberger. Leben mit Kunst, Wirken durch Kunst: Sammelwesen und Hofkunst unter Margarete von Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande. Turnhout, Belgium, 2002, p. 104, ill.

John Oliver Hand. Joos van Cleve: The Complete Paintings. New Haven, 2004, pp. 84, 148, no. 58, fig. 84 (color), sees the influence of Gerard David's Annunciation panels (MMA 50.145.9ab) and dates it about 1525.

Annette LeZotte. The Home Setting in Early Netherlandish Paintings: A Statistical and Iconographical Analysis of Fifteenth- and Early Sixteenth-Century Domestic Imagery. Lewiston, N.Y., 2008, pp. 39, 41–42, 64, 99–100, 107, 112–23, 153–57, asserts that this Annunciation "displays a variety of art objects which work together to communicate the identity of the Van Cleve workshop, the complex iconography and theological associations of the Biblical scene, and perhaps most significantly the socio-historical milieu in the city of Antwerp during the years after the start of the Protestant Reformation"; claims that it was rare for an artist to represent an illumination, a print and a panel painting within a single composition, as is the case here, and sees this as indicating a softening of guild regulations and the development of a collaborative environment in Antwerp by 1525, the panel's [approximate] date of execution; also sees the presence of these objects in a single work as a sign that "the need to eliminate visual references to the work of competing craftsmen may have diminished"; believes that "Joos van Cleve's emphasis on such 'images within images' in his Annunciation also served to promote the importance of art in Catholic devotional practice at a time when the use of imagery as part of the religious experience was being questioned by most Protestant Reformers".

Peter van den Brink in Joos van Cleve, Leonardo des Nordens. Ed. Peter van den Brink et al. Exh. cat., Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen. Stuttgart, 2011, p. 17.

Lynn F. Jacobs. Opening Doors: The Early Netherlandish Triptych Reinterpreted. University Park, Pa., 2012, pp. ix, 17, 50, 296 n. 98, fig. 3.

Micha Leeflang. Joos van Cleve: A Sixteenth-Century Antwerp Artist and His Workshop. Turnhout, Belgium, 2015, pp. 40, 57, 87 n. 73, pp. 134, 184–85, figs. 2.20 (color), 2.21, 2.22 (infrared reflectogram details).

Gianluca Zanelli in Joos van Cleve: il trittico di San Donato. Ed. Gianluca Zanelli. Genoa, 2016, pp. 55, 61 n. 134, fig. 37 (color), as datable in the first half of the 1520s.

Old Masters: Day Sale. Christie's, London. July 7, 2017, p. 53, under no. 138.

The Ann & Gordon Getty Collection: Volume 1, Important Pictures and Decorative Arts, Evening Sale. Christie's, New York . October 20, 2022, p. 245, under no. 48.