The Life of the Virgin

The Artist: For a biography of Adriaen Isenbrant, see the Catalogue Entry for Man Weighing Gold (32.100.36).

The Subject of the Painting: This triptych shows scenes from the Life of the Virgin, a very popular subject with a rich artistic tradition. All the scenes in the triptych are borrowed from compositions of different artists. The grisaille Annunciation on the left exterior wing, next to the Visitation on the right, was directly inspired by the same subject in the Life of the Virgin woodcut series by Albrecht Dürer, published in 1511 (The Met, 18.65.16). For the interior, the artist sought inspiration from Gerard David. The central panel with the Nativity was most likely based on the composition of David’s Nativity with Donors and Saint Jerome and Leonard (49.7.20a–c). The left wing depicting the Adoration of the Magi calls to mind David’s Adoration of the Magi of about 1490 (Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels). The Flight into Egypt on the right wing was inspired by Dürer’s Life of the Virgin series, using the Flight into Egypt print (57.531.9) as an example for the painting. This was an especially beloved theme and one that Isenbrant repeated in one of the medallions on the left wing of Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows (Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels). He also repeated the triptych’s Nativity scene various times in other works that can be found in the Museum Mayer van den Bergh in Antwerp, the Kunstmuseum Basel, and National Gallery of Art, Washington (see Hand 1986, pp. 118–22, and fig. 1 above). The painting in Washington shows greater maturity in style, but shares a specific detail with The Met’s triptych, namely the basket on which the naked Christ Child (corpus verum) is lying. This substitute altar alludes to the sacrament of the Eucharist (see Sintobin 1998, p. 372). Another similarity to the Washington panel is the Italianate architecture, decorated with then-new, fashionable motifs, such as gilded capitals with acanthus leaves and grotesques on top of the marble columns, seen at the left and central panels of the triptych. These architectural elements, together with the elaborate grisaille canopies on the outer wings, were influenced by the style of the Antwerp Mannerists, and give the more traditional compositions a modern sensibility. The interior of the triptych shows a continuous landscape reminiscent of Gerard David and Joachim Patinir, with its wide, sweeping view, filled with small details. Also sometimes occurring in the sixteenth century are wings that are taller than the central panel (see Sintobin 1998, p. 373).

The Function of the Painting: The small and portable triptych is an excellent example of art intended for private devotion. By portraying the tribulations that the Virgin and her infant son endured, the artist intended to evoke the viewer’s empathy. This was common practice in the Modern Devotion, a religious movement that began in the fourteenth century and lasted until the Protestant Reformation. It encouraged individual meditation on and contemplation of the suffering of Christ and the Virgin (for more information on the Modern Devotion, see "Intentional Alterations of Early Netherlandish Painting." In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–.). Because of its small size, the triptych could easily have been transported by its owner on his or her travels. Perhaps it belonged to an individual of the wealthier middle class who used this triptych for daily devotions in private chambers. Or, in the words of Sir Martin Conway, "Such a little altarpiece was perfectly adapted for the oratory of some young and pious but also well-to-do lady of its day" (see Conway 1921, p. 303).

The Attribution and Date: Attribution is problematic in Isenbrant’s oeuvre, as Jean Wilson (1995) has pointed out. Among the five hundred works in his oeuvre, not a single one can be ascribed to Isenbrant with certainty. Stylistically, the triptych is more on the traditional side. Isenbrant depends heavily on the style of Gerard David, and although Isenbrant’s landscapes are similarly detailed, his frontal figures have a softer and almost hazy quality to them (see Technical Notes). Another distinguishing feature of this triptych is the overall warmer color palette, especially in the reds and browns, which Isenbrant tended to favor. This may have been why a number of Isenbrant’s works, including The Met's triptych, were first attributed to Jan Mostaert and his followers, as "red is the ruling color in the pseudo-Mostaert group" (see Friedländer 1899, p. 15).

It is useful to compare the triptych with other works, such as the Washington panel (fig. 1) or The Flight into Egypt, sold at Sotheby’s, New York, May 22, 2018, no. 19 (see Sotheby's 2018). Both of these works show the same stylistic characteristics mentioned earlier concerning the triptych. Infrared reflectography provides additional material for comparison (figs. 2, 3; for a detailed description of the triptych’s underdrawing, see Technical Notes). Since the published IRR of the Washington panel only shows the bottom half of the painting (see Hand 1986, p. 120), any comparison must be limited to the figures and draperies. It should be noted that in both paintings the underdrawing is difficult to distinguish, since it often seems to have been followed with painted black contours. In places where the underdrawing has not been followed in paint, and therefore is visible (for the triptych’s underdrawing, see Technical Notes), the two examples appear comparable, especially in their handling: bolder strokes in the draperies, as opposed to the faint, more carefully drawn lines in the faces. The underdrawing of the landscape on the interior of the triptych, however, consists of loose sketchy strokes in a dry medium that give only a general impression of where the mountains, trees, and houses should be painted. This is similar to the Sotheby’s Flight into Egypt, with the slight discrepancy that this underdrawing shows more hatching in the foreground of the landscape, indicating the shaded areas, than in The Met's triptych (see Sotheby's 2018, p. 46).

Compared to the Sotheby’s Flight into Egypt and the Washington panel, The Met’s triptych seems to have originated earlier. Véronique Sintobin dates the painting after 1521, the year Albrecht Dürer visited the Netherlands and gifted an entire set of his woodcut prints to Margaret of Austria, although the prints probably already circulated in Bruges before that date (see Sintobin 1998, p. 372). Given the reliance on Gerard David’s (ca. 1455–1523) compositions and style, which lasted Isenbrant’s entire career but was especially prevalent in the first two decades, Sintobin’s suggestion of a date around 1521 seems most reasonable. Unfortunately, concerning the question of authorship, the best that can be done for now is to compare the various paintings attributed to Isesnbrant. Until a document or signature surfaces that can link a work securely to Isenbrant, the attribution of the The Life of the Virgin must remain open. However, this endearing triptych exhibits many of the qualities, stylistically and otherwise, often associated with Isenbrant and his workshop.

Joyce Klein Koerkamp 2019

Support: Each panel of this triptych was constructed from a single plank of wood with the grain oriented vertically. The current frame is not original to the triptych but was repurposed for this painting. The central panel was originally in an engaged frame, as indicated by the presence of a barbe at left and right edge with unpainted wood margins beyond. The top and bottom edges of the painting are covered by the top and bottom frame members and, because the painting could not be unframed at this point, it is not possible to say if the original dimensions are preserved there. But the composition does seem complete, and it is likely that the frame only covers a few millimeters of the original top and bottom edge.

The wing panels were originally in integral frames—the panels and frames were carved from single pieces of wood—but the frames were almost entirely carved away. The openings of the current frames are slightly too large for the wing panels, by about 1/2 inch in height and 1/4 inch in width. The original integral frames were not entirely removed but carved down and gilded to resemble an additional molding element about 1/8 inch wide on all sides, integrating the panels with the new frames. (The tops and bottoms of the painted composition may have been extended to meet this carving, but there is now bare wood there.)

The double-sided wings measure about 1/4 inch thick and the central panel, which was planed and cradled, now measures 3/8 inch thick. It was not possible to carry out dendrochronology at this time.

Preparation: All panels were prepared with a white ground. Examination with infrared reflectography revealed the presence of underdrawing in all five scenes (see figs. 2 and 3 above). The figures in all scenes appear to have been underdrawn using a liquid medium, while the backgrounds in the interior scenes were underdrawn with a dry material.[1] The appearance of the underdrawings in the reflectograms differs, possibly due to the different paint used and the varying ability of infrared light to penetrate it but perhaps also due to actual variations in the boldness of the underdrawings.

The underdrawing for the figures in the exterior wings, the Annunciation and the Visitation, is best observed when the reflectograms are viewed alongside the normal light images, as underdrawn lines could be confused with painted black contours. The underdrawing consists of simple outlines that have some expressivity to them: the poses and gestures have a dynamic, free quality. The square ends of the sharp lines suggest the use of a pen. The presence of black paint in the architecture makes it difficult to distinguish underdrawing there, but these features may well have been underdrawn in a similar manner.

In the central panel and inner wings, the underdrawing for the background is readily apparent in the reflectograms. Executed with a dry material, the lines are loose indications of background elements: curling lines for foliage, rough strokes for buildings. On the other hand, the underdrawing for the figures is often difficult to make out. Underdrawn lines can be seen most easily where they aren’t followed by paint, for example, the change in the ox’s horns at the center of the Nativity or the bodice of the Magus at center in the Adoration panel. The underdrawn lines for figures tend to be simple outlines, more carefully drawn than the very loose lines in the background, with a few indications of drapery folds but without any hatching. The underdrawing for the figures seems to have been made with a liquid medium that appears faint in some parts of the reflectograms, particularly in facial features, for example, the lines indicating the Virgin’s eyes, nose and mouth in the Adoration.

The underdrawing for the figures on the inner wings may appear relatively faint in the infrared reflectogram because the artist did in fact draw them with a more dilute medium. He may have been aware that his typically thin paint application, as discussed below, would not cover bold underdrawn lines. On the other hand, the paint in the grisaille would have greater covering power, allow for bolder underdrawing there.

The artist made a few adjustments to his underdrawing as he painted his compositions, correcting contours and shifting background elements slightly.

Paint Layers: Isenbrant achieved the blurry, haunting appearance of the faces on the inner scene by applying glazes of warm fleshtones with very little white. He did not use sharp contour lines or solid lines at all, and only added very limited whites for highlights and tiny white and dark touches in the eyes, sometimes adding a light blue to the whites of eyes. This resulted in a very limited tonal range in the fleshtones. And when these delicate glazes are even slightly abraded the facial features become difficult to make out, appearing almost ghostly, as in the Christ Child in the central panel.

The visual impact of the grisailles is markedly different. In these compositions the artist used much white paint mixed with black, resulting in a more bodied paint with greater contrast. (There are some brown paintstrokes at contours, but these all appear to be later strengthening by a restorer. In addition, the varnish is somewhat discolored, giving the scenes an overly warm tonality.) Without factoring in the effect of different paint mixtures, one could believe that the outer wings were by a different hand; however, the paint handling and approach in the grisailles appears very similar to the full color interior scenes.

The paintings are generally in good condition, although there are some losses in the central panel; these are located mainly in the Virgin’s robe, and are currently well integrated with retouching. The delicate glazes on the full color inner wings and central panel are somewhat rubbed, while the outer wings remain very well-preserved overall.

Sophie Scully 2019

[1] Infrared reflectography was acquired with an OSIRIS InGaAs near-infrared camera fitted with a 6-element, 150mm focal length f/5.6–f/45 lens; 900-1700nm spectral response. Captured July 2018.

Friedrich Lippmann, Berlin (by 1898–d. 1903; his estate, 1903–12; his estate sale, Lepke's, Berlin, November 26–27, 1912, no. 42, for 52,000 marks to Seligmann); [Jacques Seligmann, Paris, 1912–13; sold to The Met]

Berlin. Kunstgeschichtliche Gesellschaft. "Ausstellung von Kunstwerken des Mittelalters und der Renaissance aus Berliner Privatbesitz," May 20–June 25, 1898, no. 58 (as by "der sog. Jan Mostaert [the so-called Jan Mostaert]," lent by Friedrich Lippmann).

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. 100.

Max J. Friedländer in Ausstellung von Kunstwerken des Mittelalters und der Renaissance aus Berliner Privatbesitz Veranstaltet von der Kunstgeschichtlichen Gesellschaft . . . 1898. Berlin, 1899, pp. 14–15, ill. p. 5, as among those pictures that have been erroneously ascribed to Jan Mostaert.

Eberhard von Bodenhausen. Gerard David und seine Schule. Munich, 1905, p. 214, no. 67, ascribes it to Adriaen Isenbrant, calling it an especially fine work by the master.

Max J. Friedländer in Sammlung . . . Friedrich Lippmann. Lepke's, Berlin. November 26–27, 1912, pp. 10, 24, no. 42, ill. (including exterior wings), ascribes the picture to "Adriaen Isenbrant," noting that his artistic personality is clear, while his name is uncertain.

B[ryson] B[urroughs]. "A Triptych by Adriaen Isenbrant." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 8 (April 1913), pp. 67–69, ill.

Martin Conway. The Van Eycks and Their Followers. London, 1921, p. 303, as Isenbrant; praises the picture.

Max J. Friedländer in Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler. Ed. Ulrich Thieme. Vol. 19, Leipzig, 1926, p. 246, lists it with the works of Isenbrant.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 11, Die Antwerpener Manieristen; Adriaen Ysenbrant. Berlin, 1933, p. 128, no. 124.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 99–100, ill.

Erwin Panofsky. Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character. Cambridge, Mass., 1953, vol. 1, p. 448 n. 6 (to p. 218).

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 50.

Erik Larsen. Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York. Utrecht, 1960, pp. 82, 126, fig. 26.

Germain Seligman. Merchants of Art: 1880–1960, Eighty Years of Professional Collecting. New York, 1961, p. 120.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 11, The Antwerp Mannerists, Adriaen Ysenbrant. New York, 1974, p. 80, no. 124, pls. 101–2.

Elisa Bermejo. "Nuevas pinturas de Adrian Isenbrant." Archivo español de arte no. 189 (1975), p. 8.

Joz. De Coo. Museum Mayer van den Bergh. Catalogus 1: Schilderijen, Verluchte, Handschriften, Tekeningen. Antwerp, 1978, p. 80.

John Oliver Hand. Letter to Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann. January 18, 1979, compares the central panel with their recently acquired "Adoration of the Shepherds," observing that the figure of Joseph is quite similar, as is the device of placing the Child in an overturned basket, which seems to be peculiar to these two paintings.

John Oliver Hand in John Oliver Hand and Martha Wolff. Early Netherlandish Painting. Washington, 1986, pp. 121–22, notes that Isenbrant used the general design of the Adoration of the Shepherds in the National Gallery in several other Nativities, including the one in our triptych.

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. 340, no. 270a,b, ill.

Jean C. Wilson. "Adriaen Isenbrant and the Problem of His Oeuvre: Thoughts on Authorship, Style, and the Methodology of Connoisseurship." Oud Holland 109, no. 1/2 (1995), pp. 10, 12, 17 n. 43, figs. 12–13 (overall and exterior wing with Annunciation).

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 270, ill.

Véronique Sintobin 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. 322, 370, 372–73, 376, no. 100, ill. (color), dates it after 1521.

Kunstmuseum Basel. Die Sammlung Max Geldner im Kunstmuseum Basel: Vermächtnis und Ankäufe der Stiftung. Basel, 2000, p. 42.

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. 238 n. 44, comments on the carefully depicted grisaille wings of the private altarpiece in the background.

Lynn F. Jacobs. Opening Doors: The Early Netherlandish Triptych Reinterpreted. University Park, Pa., 2012, pp. xiv, 241–45, 248, 334–35 nn. 77–78, 80, 83, figs. 119–20 (interior and exterior).

Hilliard T. Goldfarb. "The Donation of Old Masters in the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts's New Michal and Renata Hornstein Pavilion for Peace." Burlington Magazine 159 (October 2017), p. 867.

Master Paintings. Sotheby's, New York. May 22, 2018, p. 45, fig. 2 (color), under no. 19.