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

The Painting: This triptych shows a considerably abridged version of the extended narrative recounted in all four of the New Testament Gospels: Matthew 27:26–66, Mark 15:15–47, Luke 23:24–56, and John 19:16–42. (compare, for example, with Jan van Eyck’s Crucifixion, 33.92a). The titulus above Christ’s head—INRI—is an abbreviation for the Latin Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), which according to John 19:19–20 was written in three languages: Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. The scene takes place at Golgotha, “the place of the skull,” referenced by the skull and crossed femur bones strewn in the foreground. However, the Golgotha represented here is not outside of Jerusalem. Instead, Christ hangs on a cross before a vast, open Flemish landscape in the style of Joachim Patinir, the Antwerp painter who introduced this new genre of painting in the second decade of the sixteenth century (see the Penitence of Saint Jerome Triptych, 36.14a–c). Also departing from the traditional story, Christ suffers alone, unaccompanied by the two criminals crucified along with him at his right and left, as related by John (19:18) and Luke (23:33).

The moment represented is between the sixth and the ninth hours, when the skies darkened, and Christ took his final breath. Just before this, upon seeing his mother, the Virgin Mary, and his disciple John below, he uttered, “Woman, behold your son!” Then he said to his disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own home. (John 19: 26–27). Mary’s prayerful attitude of acceptance and John’s solicitous gesture toward her acknowledge this new relationship. A rosary hangs from the Virgin’s belt, indicating how she will perpetually commemorate her son’s sacrifice and death through her prayers. Attached to John’s belt is a black pen case and a cloth-covered book in which he will write the Gospel of John—as an eye-witness account—and the Book of Revelation. Tiny scenes in the background landscape augment the biblical narrative. At the right, hanging from a tree in the distance, is Judas, who betrayed Christ, and to the far right are figures carrying the body of Christ to the tomb beyond in a cave.

The triptych is as much about the patron who commissioned it as it is about Christ’s crucifixion. Centrally located, as a privileged participant at the event, is the donor, who is connected directly to Christ and his sacrifice for humankind through the intercession of his patron saint, who embraces the cross with his right arm while laying his left hand on the kneeling man’s head. The sword on the ground near the feet of the former is the attribute of Saint Paul, and thus also the likely the name of the donor. On the wings of the triptych, left and right respectively, are Saints John the Baptist and Catherine, and Anthony of Padua and Nicholas of Tolentino. These must have been saints specifically related to and venerated by the donor. Although the saints on the right wing are depicted with their attributes, there are no accompanying scenes of their lives in the background, suggesting the painter’s lack of familiarity with them. Better known to the painter were Saints Catherine and John the Baptist, the latter for whom there are diminutive scenes of the Baptism of Christ and John preaching in the wilderness integrated into the landscape.

Without any further identifying indications, such as inscriptions or a coat of arms, and with the reverse of the wings missing (perhaps split laterally and separated from the interior paintings, their whereabouts unknown; see Technical Notes), the donor cannot be identified.[1] However, as the saints on the right interior wing are not encountered in Flemish altarpieces and are more commonly depicted in southern European paintings, and as the triptych has a Genoese provenance in the Del Vecchio collection, it is possible that the donor was one of the large number of Italian businessmen living in Antwerp in the early sixteenth century. If the patron was from Genoa, then he apparently requested that the triptych be produced in the Antwerp style, not in the Italian style as was the case for the Santa Maria della Pace Altarpiece of about 1525 (Musée du Louvre, Paris), made by Joos van Cleve for the Genoese merchant Niccolò Bellogio and his wife Franchiscetta for installation in their Genoese chapel (see fig. 1 above).[2] Perhaps the donor installed The Met’s triptych in a family chapel in Antwerp before eventually taking it with him back to Genoa. According to some scholars, the altarpiece was likely installed in the Santissima Annunziata della Costa of Sestri Ponente, near Genoa (Parma 1999, pp. 13–25; Zanelli 2003; Galassi 2006, p. 179; Galassi and Zanelli 2011, pp. 77–78).

The Attribution and Date: From its earliest mention by Wilhelm von Bode (1889), this triptych has been considered a major work by the Antwerp painter Joos van Cleve (at that time known as the Master of the Death of the Virgin). Hoogewerff (1928), who believed that Joos traveled to Genoa around 1512–15, assumed that the triptych was made in that city. However, as Hand (2004, p. 57) pointed out, the majority of the Italians in Antwerp between 1488 and 1513 were Genoese and the altarpiece could well have been made there.

This triptych clearly derives from Joos’s Crucifixion Triptych of around 1518 (Capodimonte, Naples, fig. 2), made for Marcus von Kirsch and Margriet Schats, Joos’s clients in Mechelen (Hand 2004, p. 57).[3] Here, too, the Crucifixion is restricted to Christ on the cross with the Virgin Mary and Saint John present, along with Mary Magdalen, in this instance embracing the cross instead of Saint Paul. The donors and their patron saints populate the wings, thus slightly at a distance from the event. The Naples triptych exhibits the highly emotional demeanor of Mary Magdalen and John, which is augmented by exaggerated folds of their fluttering draperies. This mannered approach becomes more subdued in The Met triptych, indicating a slightly later date around 1520.

The very fully worked up underdrawing in The Met triptych is similar to that in the Naples triptych and typical of the artist’s preparatory sketches in other works securely attributed to him (see The Annunciation, 32.100.60, Virgin and Child 1982.60.47, and Last Judgment, 40.174.1).[4] As in the Naples triptych, and the large Adoration in Dresden, the head of the donor figure is only summarily indicated in comparison with the more fully realized head of Saint Paul (fig. 3; Leeflang 2016, p. 151). Joos must have made detailed preliminary drawings of the donors on paper that he subsequently used to accurately render their physiognomy during the painting process.

Typical for a number of Joos’s paintings, although the figures were worked up fully in the underdrawing, there is very little or no perceptible underdrawing for the extended landscape (see Technical Notes; Leeflang 2015, pp. 60–63, 150–51). The background in The Met’s altarpiece wings shows no perceptible underdrawing. The central panel reveals minimal underdrawing for the landscape features of the foreground, a suggestion for the path at the right going into the distance, some vague outlines for the rocky outcroppings, and the darkening clouds with a crescent moon (that ultimately was not painted) in the sky. Furthermore, the brushwork of the landscape appears to be looser and more broadly handled than that of the figures. As Weale and Salinger (1947, p. 134) were the first to suggest, the background must have been produced by a collaborator. Quite likely, model drawings were used for the similar buildings and rocky mountains that populate the backgrounds of this and a number of Joos’s other paintings.[5] The landscapes of The Met Crucifixion Triptych and the Virgin and Child 1982.60.47 appear to have been painted by the same specialist, who might have been a member of Joos’s workshop, part of another atelier, or even an independent master who specialized in this genre of painting.

In terms of the general structure of the bird’s-eye-view landscape and the motifs of buildings, farmhouses, rocky outcroppings, and trees, the works of Joachim Patinir, Antwerp’s premier landscape painter, were highly influential.[6] Patinir joined the Antwerp painter’s Guild of Saint Luke in 1515, and thereafter his new landscape style became extremely popular locally as well as abroad. In at least four of twelve of Patinir’s best works, the figures were painted by a collaborator.[7] Interestingly, Karel van Mander wrote in his Het Schilder-boeck of 1603–4 that a “fine painting of Mary” by Joos van Cleve includes “a very beautiful landscape by Joachim Patinir.”[8] However, what could be called a “prestige collaboration” between Van Cleve and Patinir is not the case in The Met’s triptych. In a comparison with Patinir’s Penitence of Saint Jerome Triptych, 36.14a–c, for example, Joos’s landscape exhibits a lower horizon line that limits the far reach into the distance. Furthermore, as Hand has noted, Patinir’s landscapes have a certain “crystalline clarity” to them, while the background of The Met’s Crucifixion is rapidly and loosely painted (Hand 2004, p. 57). Instead of Patinir’s seemingly airless environment, the Crucifixion conveys a sense of atmosphere, particularly in the far distance, which appears to be enfolded by a blueish-white haze. Such an adaptation of Patinir’s signature style was clearly in vogue at the time. Perhaps the client asked for this type of background landscape. Alternatively, as a clever entrepreneurial strategy, Joos van Cleve may have recognized the value of including it.

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2022

[1] The suggestion made by Cécile Scailliérez that the donor is Paolo di Negro from Genoa is unlikely. Based on the portrait of him of ca. 1518 by Adriaen Isenbrant (Bruges, Groeningemuseum), he appears quite different from The Met donor. See Galassi and Zanelli 2011, p. 70.
[2] Scailliérez in Paris 1991; Galassi and Zanelli 2011, pp. 77–78; Leeflang 2015, pp. 141–43.
[3] See also Leeflang 2015, pp. 122–26.
[4] See Leeflang 2015, passim.
[5] Leeflang 2015, p. 63.
[6] Hand 2004, pp. 37–45; Mar Borobia in Patinir: Essays and Critical Catalogue, Ed. Alejandro Vergara, exh. cat., Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, 2007, pp. 204–9; Hand 2011, pp. 58–59; Leeflang 2015, pp. 62–63.
[7] Alejandro Vergara, “Who was Patinir? What is a Patinir?” in Patinir: Essays and Critical Catalogue, Ed. Alejandro Vergara, exh. cat., Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, 2007, p. 30.

Support: The central panel of this triptych was constructed from three planks of oak, while the wings were each constructed from a single plank of oak. Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1513 for the central panel and 1516 for the wings, with a more plausible date of 1519 and 1522 onwards, respectively.[1] The oak originated in the Baltic/Polish region.

There are traces of a barbe around the perimeter of each painting, indicating that the original dimensions are preserved and that the panels were in engaged frames when prepared. In fact, the paintings remain in their original frames, although their surface is re-gilded (see Frame).

At some point before entering the Met’s collection, the central panel was thinned to 4 mm (about 3/16 inch), adhered to a secondary panel measuring 6 mm (about 1/4 inch) thick, and cradled. The wings measure 6 mm (about 1/4 inch) thick on average and are not painted on their reverses nor cradled. Such wings would typically have been double-sided originally, and it is possible that painted versos were split laterally and separated from the rest of the triptych, with their current whereabouts unknown.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a white ground. There may be a layer of lead white-containing priming on top of the ground—some broad strokes of a radio-opaque material are apparent in the x-radiograph (see fig. 4 above).

Examination with infrared reflectography revealed an extensive underdrawing, executed using a dry medium (fig. 5).[2] The underdrawing, primarily found in the figures, is entirely characteristic of Joos van Cleve, using energetic and seemingly rapidly drawn contours lines, with the animated expressions and elegantly elongated fingers so typical of him. The underdrawing for the face of Catherine of Alexandria and the unidentified donor differ from the others. Only the outlines for Catherine’s face were set out—with lines that are fainter than those in the rest of the reflectogram—and there is no indication of her facial features. There is little underdrawing in the donor’s face; however, a minimal amount of underdrawing has been noted in other paintings of donors by Joos van Cleve, who likely relied on portrait drawings when painting their likenesses. (See Catalogue Entry and Leeflang, 2015, p. 151) He also established shading in the underdrawing stage using long, parallel, and slightly curving hatchmarks, with occasional rows of shorter hatchmarks.

Some important elements of the background were also underdrawn, primarily in the central panel. Most significantly, the ominous darkening clouds were set out in the preparatory stage. A crescent moon was also underdrawn, although it was not ultimately painted. Some underdrawn lines are evident in the rocky outcroppings, and particularly in the pathway through the rocks at center. In addition, shadows cast by the figures and important objects were indicated with hatchmarks. There appear to be only a few lines of underdrawing in the landscapes on the wings; see for example the pathway in the distance between Saints Catherine and John the Baptist.

The backgrounds of Joos van Cleve paintings are rarely underdrawn; one exception is the Naples Crucifixion (Leeflang, 2015, 125). Both this and The Met’s Crucifixion are complex compositions, and the existence of some underdrawing in the background would not seem to preclude the involvement of a landscape painter. In fact, examination of the painting technique suggested two different hands, as discussed in Paint Layers below. The underdrawing throughout the triptych, including that related to the background, all appears to be similar in character and made by the same hand.

The artist or artists followed the underdrawing quite closely when executing the painting, making only minor adjustments to contours and positions. The more significant changes involved the important objects and attributes of the saints, such as shortening Catherine’s sword and altering the hilt, adjusting the crossed bones in the foreground of the central panel, and lowering the position of the crucifix.

Paint Layers: The intricacy and beauty of this triptych demanded a complex manufacture and seemingly also collaboration, which technical examination shed some light on. The background was painted first, leaving reserves for the figures. The figures, along with their attributes, were then painted in the areas reserved for them. In a final step, small touches were added at the boundaries between figures and landscape to unify the painting, to emphasize contours, or make tiny adjustments where needed. For example, the painted legs of Christ on the cross in the central panel seemed to be smaller than the reserve left for them, and so blue paint was applied at the edge of the sky and pulled toward and around his legs to bridge the gaps. Other adjustments were more subtle: the hem of a robe shortened slightly or the fold of a garment emphasized by bringing the dark green paint of the ground in closer. In several areas, the artist added a final contour around figures using a dark brown or even black painted line. In addition, in an unusual strategy, he occasionally dragged a blunt tool through the wet paint of the figures at contours, seemingly to edit them as well, in effect scraping away a small amount of paint. This evidence of the artist revising and finessing contours points to his profound care for harmony between foreground and background. The instances of a back and forth between foreground and background do not argue against the involvement of a landscape specialist, but instead suggest that one artist, presumably Joos van Cleve, added final touches to unify the composition.

The faces are remarkable for the ranges of expressions and facial types and tone, achieved through the very delicate application of thin paint. Joos mixed white throughout his fleshtones and added warm glazes for modeling, with very soft blending. There are very few strong lines or darks in the faces, with the obvious exception of the dead Christ on the cross.

The artist made very few alterations during the course of painting. The only significant change is a shift to the donor’s head; the artist began painting the head following the sketchy underdrawing but then decided to shift it to the left—this change is evident in the x-radiograph. In addition, the artist began to paint a tree to the left of the tallest tree at the center of the left wing but did not ultimately include it in the final version.

Sophie Scully 2022

[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, report dated 12 May 1997. The report can be found in the files of the Department of Paintings Conservation. “The youngest heartwood ring on the central panel was formed out in the year 1502 and in the year 1505 on the wings. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1511 for the central panel and 1514 for the wings, more plausible are felling dates between 1515..1517….1521(central panel) and 1518..1520….1524 +x (wings). With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1513 (central panel) and 1516 (wings) 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 1519 (central panel) and 1522 (wings) upwards.”
[2] Infrared reflectography was acquired with a Merlin Indigo InGaAs near-infrared camera fitted with a StingRay macro lens customized for the wavelengths covered by the camera, 0.9 to 1.7 microns, 2014.

Inscription: Inscribed (on cross): ·INRI·

Signor Del Vecchio, Genoa (by 1889); Adolf Thiem, San Remo (by 1909); George Blumenthal, New York (by 1916–d. 1941; cat., vol. 1, 1926, pl. XLVIII)

Palm Beach. Society of the Four Arts. "Early European Paintings," January 7–30, 1949, no. 5.

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. 95.

Wilhelm von Bode. "H. Toman. Jan van Scorel und die Geheimnisse der Stilkritik, 1888." Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 12 (1889), p. 75 n. 2, considers this altarpiece, then with the lawyer Del Vechio in Genoa, a major work by the Master of the Death of the Virgin.

[E.] Firmenich–Richartz in Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler. Ed. Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker. Vol. 3, Leipzig, 1909, p. 217, lists it in the collection of Adolf Thiem, San Remo, as a work of Joos van Cleve's early period and relates it to the Crucifixion triptych by him in Naples [Museo di Capodimonte].

Max J. Friedländer. Von Eyck bis Bruegel: Studien zur Geschichte der Niederländischen Malerei. Berlin, 1916, p. 186, lists it with works by Joos, formerly in the Thiem collection.

Stella Rubenstein. "Two Pictures by Joos van Cleve (Master of the Death of the Virgin)." Art in America 4, no. 4 (October, 1916), pp. 343, 351–52, ill., dates it about the same time as Joos's Crucifixion triptych in Naples; notes that the landscape in the background is in the manner of Patinir and compares it to the landscape in Joos's Adoration of the Magi in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin [now Gemäldegalerie].

Martin Conway. The Van Eycks and Their Followers. London, 1921, pp. 403, 407, dates this altarpieces and Joos's Naples Crucifixion early in his career; notes that it imitates Quentin Massys's Crucifixion in the Liechtenstein Collection [now National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa] and comments that the lanscape is in Massys's style as well; discusses it among other works by Joos which seem to have been painted for Genoese patrons, possibly in Genoa itself.

Ludwig von Baldass. Joos van Cleve, der Meister des Todes Mariä. Vienna, 1925, pp. 34–35, no. 103, lists it among works ascribed to Joos by others, but unknown to the author even in reproduction.

Stella Rubinstein-Bloch. Catalogue of the Collection of George and Florence Blumenthal. Vol. 1, Paintings—Early Schools. Paris, 1926, unpaginated, pl. 48.

G. J. Hoogewerff. "Joachim Patinir en Italie." Revue d'art 29 (July–December 1928), pp. 123–24, lists it with a group of five altarpieces by Joos with Genoese provenances; dates these works before 1515 and concludes that the artist was in Genoa between 1512–15.

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. 128, no. 12, dates it about 1520.

Pierre Bautier in location unknown, Antwerp. Trésor de l'art flamand du moyen age au XVIIIme siècle: Mémorial de l'exposition d'art flamand ancien à Anvers 1930. Paris, 1932, vol. 1, p. 55 n. 2, mentions it along with four other pictures with a Genoese provenance made at different periods of Joos' s career; suggests that Joos was in the city between 1512 and 1515.

G. J. Hoogewerff. Vlaamsche kunst en Italiaansche Renaissance. Mechelen, [1935?], pp. 104–5, hypothesizes that Joos went to Genoa twice, between 1512–16 and between 1525–28; dates the MMA Crucifixion triptych to his first stay there.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 133–35, ill., date it about 1515; note that the thin body of Jesus and the fluttering loin-cloth relate to a type used earlier by Rogier van der Weyden; ascribe the elaborate landscape to another hand, a close imitator of Patinir or even Patinir himself.

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, p. 91, attributes it to Joos van Cleve, about 1511; notes that the figure of Christ derives from the Rogier by way of Quentin Massys; observes that the landscape, which resembles the compositions of Patinir, is not by Joos.

Goffredo J. Hoogewerff. "Pittori fiamminghi in Liguria nel secolo XVI." Commentari 12, no. 3 (July–September 1961), p. 187.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 9, part 1, Joos van Cleve, Jan Provost, Joachim Patenier. New York, 1972, p. 53, no. 12, pl. 27.

Elga Lanc. "Die religiösen Bilder des Joos van Cleve." PhD diss., Universität Wien, 1972, pp. 98, 109–10, 120 n. 3, 127, 142 n. 1, 145 n. 2, fig. 86, dates it about 1525.

Elisabeth Heller. Das altniederländische Stifterbild. PhD diss., Universität München. Munich, 1976, p. 181, no. 65, identifies the figure between the cross and the patron as "Nikodemus (?)," who was venerated as a saint in Italy, hence the possibility that the patron was Italian.

John Oliver Hand. "Joos van Cleve: The Early and Mature Works." PhD diss., Princeton University, 1978, pp. 174–76, 178, 180, 300, no. 41, fig. 49, dates the painting to the early 1520s; discusses it in the context of collaboration between Joos and his assistants; attributes the landscape to an artist in Joos's studio who was familiar with Patinir's landscape style and handled the paint rather loosely and rapidly, creating atmospheric impressionism; notes that the figure at the foot of the cross, whom he identifies as Joseph of Arimathea, repeats, in reverse, the pose of the Magdalen in the Naples panel; dismisses as too speculative the hypothesis that the picture was comissioned for a Genoese patron or that Joos was in Genoa at a very early date.

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. 161–66 n. 4, pls. 75–79 (overall and infrared reflectogram details), dates it about 1520, or after the Naples altarpiece of 1516; sees the underdrawing as consistent with the direct, spontaneous and confident style found in Joos's other paintings in the MMA; notes that "the landscape shows no underdrawing, adding evidence for the hypothesis that it is by a different hand".

Trudy E. Bell. "Technology: Seeing into the Past." Connoisseur 210 (June 1982), pp. 140–41, ill. (detail and infrared reflectogram detail).

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.

Larry Silver. The Paintings of Quinten Massys with Catalogue Raisonné. Montclair, N.J., 1984, p. 179, discuses this triptych among works by Joos, in which he draws upon compositions by Quinten Massys, such as his Crucifixion triptych in the Museum Mayer van den Bergh, Antwerp; considers Joos's "theatrical, agitated, even melodramatic" expression of grief a feature of the emerging Antwerp Mannerist idiom.

Guy Bauman. "Early Flemish Portraits, 1425–1525." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 43 (Spring 1986), pp. 30–33, ill. in color (overall and detail), comments on compositional similarities in Rogier van der Weyden's Crucifixion triptych (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna); relates the more personal and direct role of the patron saint and the distanced placement of the Virgin and Saint John in our altarapiece to a change in religious sensibility that anticipates the onset of the Protestant Reformation; identifies the figure at the foot of the cross as Saint Paul, the donor's patron saint; notes that Paul was not a common name in Flanders, and that the Italian provenance and the presence of two Italian saints in the right wing suggest the donor was an Italian with business in Antwerp; notes that the scalloped shape of the top edge of the triptych became fashionable during the first decades of the 16th century.

Cécile Scailliérez. Joos van Cleve au Louvre. Paris, 1991, pp. 80, 82–83, no. 110, ill., notes that the Entombment scene in the background of the central panel corresponds exactly to the same scene in Joos's Altarpiece of the Lamentation (the Schmitgen Triptych of 1524, Städelsches Kunstinstitut, Frankfurt); discusses the question of one or more trips to Genoa by Joos.

Maryan W. Ainsworth, Selected by Guy C. Bauman, and Walter A. Liedtke in Flemish Paintings in America: A Survey of Early Netherlandish and Flemish Paintings in the Public Collections of North America. Antwerp, 1992, pp. 112–15, no. 31, ill. in color (overall and details), as by Joos and a workshop assistant; dates it about 1520–25; observes that "the Patinir-like panorama landscape," which is executed apparently by a different hand, is similar to landscapes in numerous paintings from Joos's workshop.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 269, ill. p. 268.

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. 32, 36, 58, 143, 209, 211, 356–60, no. 95, ill. (color, overall and details) , dates it about 1520 calling it a variant of Joos's Crucifixion triptych in Naples; ascribes the landscape, with a variety of interspersed biblical subjects and scenes of daily life, to a collaborator, probably a follower of Patinir; based on its "imposing size," suggests it was commisioned for a family chapel in a church.

Olga Kotková. "Joos van Cleve, Triptych with the Adoration of the Magi in the National Gallery in Pragiue. An Example of Workshop Practice." La peinture dans les pays-bas au 16e siècle [Colloque pour l'étude du dessin sous-jacent et de la technologie de la peinture]. Ed. Hélène Verougstraete et al. Colloque 12, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1999, p. 93.

John Oliver Hand. Joos van Cleve: The Complete Paintings. New Haven, 2004, pp. 56–57, 71, 137, 185, no. 40, fig. 55 (central panel), as one of several altarpieces by Joos from the early 1520s; in reference to the landscape here, considers it likely that Joos had a landscape specialist in his entourage, one that may have trained in Patinir's shop.

Gianluca Zanelli in San Nicola da Tolentino nell'arte: corpus iconografico. Ed. Valentino Pace and Roberto Tollo. Vol. 1, Dalle origini al Concilio di Trento. Tolentino, 2005, pp. 403–4, no. 336, colorpl. LXXIV, ill. p. 404.

Michael Rohlmann. "The Annunciation by Joos Ammann in Genoa: Context, Function and Metapictorial Quality." Cultural Exchange Between the Low Countries and Italy (1400–1600). Ed. Ingrid Alexander-Skipnes. Turnhout, Belgium, 2007, p. 26.

Micha Leeflang. "Joos van Cleve's 'Adoration of the Magi' in Detroit: Revealing the Underdrawing." Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 82, no. 1/2 (2008), pp. 70, 74–75 nn. 37, 38.

Alice Taatgen in Joos van Cleve, Leonardo des Nordens. Ed. Peter van den Brink et al. Exh. cat., Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen. Stuttgart, 2011, p. 160, under no. 5.

Micha Leeflang in Joos van Cleve, Leonardo des Nordens. Ed. Peter van den Brink et al. Exh. cat., Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen. Stuttgart, 2011, p. 144.

Maria Clelia Galassi in Joos van Cleve, Leonardo des Nordens. Ed. Peter van den Brink et al. Exh. cat., Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen. Stuttgart, 2011, pp. 65, 70, 77, fig. 49 (color).

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.

John Oliver Hand (EP) in Joos van Cleve, Leonardo des Nordens. Ed. Peter van den Brink et al. Exh. cat., Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen. Stuttgart, 2011, pp. 46–48.

Cécile Scailliérez in Joos van Cleve, Leonardo des Nordens. Ed. Peter van den Brink et al. Exh. cat., Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen. Stuttgart, 2011, p. 89.

Gianluca Zanelli in Joos van Cleve, Leonardo des Nordens. Ed. Peter van den Brink et al. Exh. cat., Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen. Stuttgart, 2011, pp. 77–78.

Micha Leeflang. Joos van Cleve: A Sixteenth-Century Antwerp Artist and His Workshop. Turnhout, Belgium, 2015, pp. 62–63, 93, 150–52, 156, 158 nn. 9–10, p. 162 n. 167, p. 164 n. 231, pp. 186–87, figs. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 (color, overall and detail, and infrared reflectogram details).

Kathryn Calley Galitz. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Masterpiece Paintings. New York, 2016, p. 274, no. 174, ill. pp. 178, 274 (color).

Gianluca Zanelli in Joos van Cleve: il trittico di San Donato. Ed. Gianluca Zanelli. Genoa, 2016, pp. 38–39, 60 n. 92, fig. 19 (color).

The frame is from Antwerp and dates to about 1520 (see figs. 6–8 above). This original black and giltwood triptych frame is made of oak and retains its joinery secured with wooden pins. The elaborate swept arches conform to the panels. Both the central panel frame and those on the wings are similar in profile. A bead and chamfer at the sight edge precedes a hollow and step before an upper bead within the flat fillet at the top edge. The central panel has an additional small cavetto and step at the sight edge. While of slightly different scale, both have a chamfered sill across the bottom rail. The triptych retains its original hinges, though the pins have been changed. The black paint and surface gilding were restored in the 1980s.

Timothy Newbery with Cynthia Moyer 2017; further information on this frame can be found in the Department of European Paintings files