Saint Paul with a Donor; Christ Appearing to His Mother

Biography of the Artist: The Master of the Saint Ursula Legend is the name Max J. Friedländer (1903) ascribed to the anonymous artist of a series of paintings depicting the saint’s life: The Legend of Saint Ursula, the Church and the Synagogue (before 1483, Groeningemuseum, Bruges, see fig. 1 above), which was made for the Cloister of the Black Sisters in Bruges. A contemporary of Hans Memling, the artist was active in Bruges between 1470 and 1490. Although influenced by Memling, he also was inspired by Rogier van der Weyden, the famous painter of Brussels where the Ursula Master may also have worked initially. Friedländer assembled around twenty works in the oeuvre of the artist, among which are a group of Virgin and Child paintings that derive from Rogier’s types (see The Met, 17.190.16).[1]. Further refinements were made by Georges Marlier (1964), followed by A. Janssens, both of whom attempted to arrange the assigned works in chronological order, based on the representation in the paintings of the Bruges belfry tower, which continued to be built over the fifteenth century.[2] Daniel Levine’s monographic study (1989) accepted thirty-eight works by the Ursula Master, listed four as questionable attributions, and rejected seven others. Martin Conway, followed by Albert Janssens, sought to identify the Ursula Master with Pieter Casinbroodt the Elder (1436–1504/5), who was a leading member of the Bruges painters’ guild that he joined in 1459/60.[3] However, this proposal can neither be supported nor refuted, since no documented work by Casinbroodt has survived (Levine 1989, pp. 127–33). Levine pointed out that few of the works assigned by Friedländer to the Ursula Master conform to the stylistic traits of the eponymous painting in Bruges. As such, the oeuvre of the Ursula Master is a compilation of inhomogeneous works by several artists, perhaps in the same workshop, that requires a reassessment likely leading to various associated groups. Only a small number of the paintings have been studied through technical investigations (Faries, Heller and Levine 1987, p. 19 n.21; Levine 1989, pp. 59–88),[4] which, as these are carried out in the future, may lead to further clarification of this master’s oeuvre and that of his close associates.

The Paintings: These two wings of a triptych attributed to the Master of the Saint Ursula Legend were generously donated to The Met along with other paintings from the Friedsam Collection in 1931. Serendipity and the vicissitudes of time account for the fact that fifteenth-century triptychs have not always remained intact, the centerpieces becoming separated from their flanking wings for unknown reasons. Represented on the left wing is Saint Paul with his attribute, the sword, by which he was martyred in Rome, and the donor of the triptych, who most likely also was named Paul. The latter kneels before a prie-dieu on which is placed a small book of hours. The tiny background scene shows the beheading of Saint Paul in a town square. According to legend, the saint’s head bounced three times before landing on the ground, and each time a spring miraculously emerged. The church of San Paolo alle Tre Fontane (Saint Paul of the Three Fountains) was later built on the site. On the right wing, Christ appears to his mother, the Virgin Mary, after his Crucifixion and Resurrection (see also Juan de Flandes, 22.60.58). She turns quickly from reading her breviary and raises her hands in astonishment, while Christ gestures a blessing with his right hand, simultaneously showing the stigmata of his crucifixion.[5] In the background the Virgin and two other Marys approach the still-sealed tomb. Not found in the Gospels, the episode of Christ Appearing to His Mother from the Passion of Christ comes from thirteenth-century apocryphal writings, namely the Pseudo-Bonaventure’s Meditations on the Life of Christ.[6]

Dirk De Vos was the first to suggest that the centerpiece of the triptych is the in the Musée Thomas-Henry, Cherbourg-Octeville (Levine 1989, pp. 108–9; fig. 2). In addition to the fact that the Cherbourg panel also is by the Saint Ursula Master, De Vos supported his claim by two other observations: the two coats of arms above in the Cherbourg painting are identical, indicating, he supposed, a single donor as we see on the left wing, and the sizes of the panels are roughly equivalent. The Cherbourg panel is 96 x 73 cm (presumably the painted surface), and The Met’s wings are 93.4 x 27.6 cm and 93.4 x 27.3 cm (painted surfaces). The differences of around eighteen centimeters between the width of the central panel and combined widths of the wings, it was explained, could have been due to the original frames.

Subsequently, based on Florentine heraldic registers, Michael Rohlmann (1995) identified the coat of arms on the outside of the wings of Hans Memling’s triptych of the Virgin and Child Enthroned with Angels and Saints John the Baptist and Lawrence (ca. 1480, National Gallery, London; figs. 3, 4) as those of the Pagagnotti family. Recognizing that the Cherbourg panel shows the same coat of arms and having discovered archival documentation of a Paul within the Pagagnotti family, Rohlmann identified Paolo Pagagnotti as the patron of the “Cherbourg-Met Triptych.” Paolo apparently traveled widely—correspondence places him in 1488 in Lisbon—and, as Rohlmann speculated, he could well have visited Bruges where he could have engaged the Ursula Master to paint this triptych. Rohlmann also identified an Ecce Homo in grisaille (Museo Bandini, Fiesole) as the former reverses of The Met paintings (fig. 5). The Fiesole panels measure 77.5 x 28.5 cm each, and thus must have been cut down in their vertical dimension by around sixteen centimeters.[7]

In 2014, the various elements of the triptych’s reconstruction were brought together in the splendid exhibition, Memling, Rinascimento fiammingo at the Scuderie del Quirinale in Rome (Borchert 2014, pp. 180–83; fig. 2). There for the first time, despite the differences in modern framing, The Met panels could be seen flanking the Cherbourg painting, with the Fiesole grisaille paintings installed to the side. What was immediately striking are the considerable anomalies of the ensemble. The intact wings together measure eighteen centimeters less than the width of the Cherbourg panel. If this was compensated for by the original framing, then why is there not also a discrepancy in the height of the wings and so-called central panel? The Virgin of the Cherbourg panel is oddly larger in scale than the figures on either of the wings, and the various settings in which they are situated are not in agreement. The lancet windows in the wings and the barrel-vaulted ceilings suggest a church setting, while the central panel, with Joseph entering through the back doorway, appears to be a grand domestic interior with a throne in the foreground portico. The floor tile decoration is different in all three paintings, although the wings show a more similar pattern, and there is no unity in their perspective schemes. Noting some of these incongruities, Daniel Levine (1989, p. 110) added that instead of connecting visually with the donor figure at the left, the Christ Child turns his back to him, raising his right hand in blessing toward the viewer whom he directly addresses with his forward-looking glance.

Is this apparent discord of the ensemble characteristic of the Master of the Saint Ursula Legend, or does it suggest that these three panels were not created as an ensemble from the outset? Although there are only a few extant examples of intact triptychs attributed to this master, the Nativity Triptych in the Detroit Institute of Arts serves as a helpful comparison (fig. 6).[8] As is the case with most early Netherlandish triptychs of the late fifteenth century, the figures in the three panels are arranged across the foreground plane before a background landscape that is continuous across all three panels, uniting them. Although the scale of the figures in the two wings differs—the left wing of the Visitation showing slightly smaller figures than the right wing of the Archangel with a donor—the centerpiece figure of the Virgin matches the scale of the figures on the right wing. The treatment of the wings of The Met and the Detroit paintings is similar with the biblical scene in each showing slightly smaller figures than the wing with the donor and his patron saint (fig. 7). The reconstructed “Cherbourg-Met Triptych” then differs from the Detroit Nativity Triptych in that it presents figures of different scale in all three panels and no continuous background to unite them.

There seem to be irregularities also in the iconographic program of the reconstructed triptych. The lack of cohesion between the central panel and the wings is especially notable. Rogier van der Weyden’s Christ Appearing to His Mother, a design upon which The Met painting is partially based, is united with a Nativity and a Lamentation in the Miraflores Triptych (Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, fig. 8), signaling three of the most important stages in the life of Christ and his relationship to the Virgin Mary. Elsewhere, Christ Appearing to His Mother (Washington, National Gallery) was formerly the reverse of Christ on the Cross (Philadelphia Art Museum), where the pendant wing representing the Annunciation (Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon) was the reverse of the Virgin Collapsing in Saint John’s Arms (Philadelphia Art Museum). These were perhaps the wings of a sculpted corpus representing the life of the Virgin (Steyaert 2013, pp. 156–59). The Cherbourg Virgin and Child with Musical Angels fails to relate to either of The Met side wings in any cohesive way. Furthermore, the two identical and symmetrical coats of arms of the Pagagnotti family suggest a devotional triptych with lost wings equally representing members of that family, perhaps Benedetto and Piero Pagagnotti.[9]

In the case of the reconstructed “Cherbourg-Met Triptych” the proposed former outside wings in Fiesole represent the Ecce Homo. The fact that both The Met panels and the Fiesole panels have early provenances in Florence, the former in the Marchese Gioacchino Ferroni Collection, and the latter in the Canon Angiolo Maria Bandini Collection, adds credence to this assumption. The Fiesole panels have been cut down at the top, and if about sixteen centimeters were to be added, they would equal the size of the height of The Met wings. However, further technical study of the Fiesole panels would be helpful in determining whether they did once form the back sides of The Met wings. If this indeed were the case, then the expectation upon opening this triptych would more likely have been a scene from the Passion of Christ than a depiction of the Virgin and Child enthroned with musical angels. This raises further questions. If the Cherbourg Virgin and Child with the coat of arms of the Pagagnotti family is not the original central panel of a triptych that had as its wings The Met panels, then this places in doubt the identity of the donor figure as Paolo Pagagnotti. The man is most likely a Paul or Paolo, but is he a Pagagnotti? Nonetheless, Lorne Campbell (1981) acknowledged that Paul was not a common name in the Lowlands at the time and suggested that the donor perhaps was a member of the Italian community in Bruges. Interestingly, the underdrawing in the center of the round glass window above the door in Christ Appearing to his Mother shows a shield for a coat of arms that was not painted (fig. 9), further leaving open the question of the identity of the donor.

The Attribution and Date: Friedländer named the artist based on the series of paintings depicting the saint’s life: The Legend of Saint Ursula, the Church and the Synagogue (before 1483, Groeningemuseum, Bruges) and linked The Met panels with this work (Friedländer 1923, fig. 1). This attribution was supported by most scholars, Eisler (1964), Rohlmann (1994, 1995), Sprinson de Jesus (1998), De Vos (1999), Steyaert (2013), and Borchert (2014), among others. Some were less convinced and preferred to attribute the paintings to an anonymous Bruges painter (Larsen 1960), or simply leave the question open, as proposed by Marlier (1964). The strongest support for the attribution of The Met panels to the Master of the Saint Ursula Legend has been made by Levine (1989), who had the opportunity to study many of the attributed works first-hand and several through technical investigations. If we compare the figures of the Detroit Nativity Triptych with those of The Met panels, we note many similarities with the general stiff poses and staid demeanor of the figures, the use of hands—with their long spindly fingers—to convey meaning through their gestures, and the reoccurrence of types, whether they take on the same role in different narratives or not. Elizabeth of the Detroit Visitation is virtually identical to the Virgin in The Met’s panel, and Saint Paul’s head is closely related to saints in other paintings by the Ursula Master (Levine 1989, p. 170). However, the head and hands of the donor figure show a different approach and may well have been painted by another member of the Ursula Master’s workshop. Instead of the long spindly fingers of the hands elsewhere in the wings, the donor has rather shorter, thicker fingers in hands that are more broadly painted. The head too shows more fully blended brushstrokes and less evidence of the touches of white added here and there that create greater contrasts in the modeling of the heads of the holy figures (see further discussion in the Technical Notes).

Notably, the underdrawing found in The Met panels (see Technical Notes), according to Levine (1989, p. 72 and pp. 59–88), accords well with that found in other paintings by the master and appears to have been executed by one hand. There are two stages of underdrawing, one appearing lighter than the other. Although the two underdrawing stages in the Detroit Nativity Triptych are thought to be a liquid medium followed by a dry one (Faries, Heller, and Levine 1987), in The Met paintings the two stages are in a liquid medium, the uppermost stage appearing to finalize or correct details of the initial underdrawing. The sketch is quite lively and free with even, parallel hatching used liberally to describe the modeling in the draperies. Although the preliminary sketch on both panels is by the same hand, it is interesting to note the more extensive parallel hatching in Christ Appearing to His Mother that appears to be carried out with greater precision and care. This is perhaps because the right-wing figures copy a pattern, rather widely circulated, that originated in Rogier van der Weyden’s workshop. Therefore, the design was already set and could simply be followed without further amendments. The backgrounds in both The Met paintings and the Detroit Nativity Triptych were also lightly sketched in with a number of changes made from the preparatory drawing to the final painted layers.
Judging from the style of the dress of the donor, the paintings can be dated around 1485. This is not contradicted by the dendrochronology of Peter Klein who indicated a plausible creation time from 1480 upward (see Technical Notes).

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2022

[1] M. J. Friedländer, Die altniederländische Malerei Vol. 14, Pieter Bruegel und Nachträge zu den frühen Bänden, Leiden, 1937, p. 104. See also P. Bautier 1956 and Levine 1989.
[2] Marlier 1964, pp. 13–16; A. Janssens, “Het Brugse Belfort. Wissselend uitzicht tussen omstreeks 1480 en 1503,” Brugs Ommeland 44/2 (2004), pp. 67–84; A. Janssens, “Chronologische preciseringen bij het oeuvre van Pieter Casenbroot en Fransoys vanden Pitte,” Vlaanderen 54 (2005), pp. 157–62.
[3] M. Conway, The Van Eycks and Their Followers, London, 1921, pp. 247, 250. A. Schouteet, De Vlaamse Primitieven te Brugge. Bronnen voor de schilderkunst te Brugge tot de dood van Gerard David (Fontes historiae artis neerlandicae. Bronnen voor de kinstgeschiedenis van de Nederlanden 2), 2 vols. Brussels, 1989–2004, vol. 1, pp. 95–109. Albert Janssens, “de Meesters van de Lucia- en de Ursulalegende. Een poging tot identificatie,” in Handelingen van het genootschap voor geschiedenis te Brugge, 141, 2004, pp. 278–331, esp. pp. 289–314.
[4] See also, Till-Holger Borchert, “The Bruges Master of the Legend of Saint Ursula, Investigating Workshop Practices of Anonymous Bruges Painters by Looking into Underdrawings,” in Hélène Verougstraete and Jacqueline Couvert, eds., Le Peinture Ancienne et ses Procédés, Copies, Répliques, Pastiches, Le Dessin sous-jacent et la Technologie dans la Peinture, Colloque XV, Bruges, September 11–13, 2003, Leuven, 2006, pp. 19–26.
[5] My thanks to Beth Morrison and Thom Kren, presently and formerly of the Manuscripts Department at the J. Paul Getty Museum, for identifying the type of devotional books in these two paintings.
[6] Isa Ragusa and Rosalie Green, Meditations on the Life of Christ, Princeton, 1961, pp. 359–60. See also James Breckenridge, “‘Et Prima Vidit’: The Iconography of the Appearance of Christ to His Mother,” Art Bulletin 39, (1957), p. 24; 1957, pp. 9–32; and Louis Réau, Iconographie de l’art chrétien, vol. 2, part 2, Paris, 1955–59, pp. 554–56.
[7] The Fiesole panels are not included in Levine’s 1989 monograph. Linda Mueller (email of January 25, 2020), who studied the Fiesole paintings firsthand believes that they are closer to the paintings by the Master of the Saint Barbara Legend. Two nearly identical paintings that show the uncut images of the Ecce Homo are in the Bob Jones University Museum and Gallery, Greenville, Tennessee. See Kennedy 2011, pp. 98–101.
[8] See also the Triptych of the Annunciation, private collection, England; and the Altarpiece of the Virgin and Child with a Donor, and Saints Mary Magdalen and Catherine, reverse: The Annunciation, in the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie, Alte Meister, Dresden. See Levine 1989, nos, 1–3, pp. 145–60.
[9] Suggested to Maryan Ainsworth by Till-Holger Borchert in an email of July 31, 2022. Borchert also agreed with the author that The Met wings do not likely belong to the Cherbourg Virgin and Child, reversing his former opinion stated in Borchert 2014, p. 180.

Support: Each panel was constructed from a single plank of oak, with the grain oriented vertically. Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1474 with a more plausible date of 1480 onwards.[1] The wood originated in the Baltic/Polish region. Dendrochronology also revealed that the two planks came from the same tree as the plank used for the Portrait of a Young Man also attributed to the Master of the Saint Ursula Legend (Accademia Carrara, Bergamo, Inv. 196).

The presence of unpainted margins and barbes around all edges indicate that the original dimensions of the paintings are preserved and that the panels were prepared with engaged frames in place. At some point before entering The Met’s collection both planks were thinned to only about 2 mm. The very thin panels were each adhered to a secondary wood support, about 6 mm thick, and cradled. The thinness of the original panels could be the result of separating painted reverses by splitting the panels laterally.

Preparation: The panels were prepared with a whitish ground. Examination with infrared reflectography revealed the presence of extensive underdrawings.[2] The underdrawing on both panels appears to be generally similar in material and technique with only a few minor differences (see figs. 10, 11 above).

The underdrawings were executed using a liquid medium and most likely a brush. The most important features of the compositions were set out with underdrawing, however, dark paint seemingly obscures these lines in the interior architecture. In both panels it appears that the artist reinforced some passages of underdrawing in a second stage, mainly emphasizing the darkest regions of drapery. This second stage can be seen in the deepest folds, using very bold lines that end in perpendicular short marks, or in passages where there seem to be two layers of hatchmarks.

The main difference between the underdrawings in the two panels is the degree of neatness. The hatchmarks in the Saint Paul and the donor panel are messier, particularly in the second stage, with lines that are irregular and run in all directions, seemingly quickly applied. These lines also have an angularity that is difficult to achieve with a brush but more commonly seen when a pen is used. On the other hand, in the Christ Appearing to his Mother panel, the hatchmarks are neater: evenly-spaced, in short, parallel rows. There is also more hatching in this scene in general, as in Christ’s arms and the Virgin’s head-covering. The underdrawing in this panel appears to have been entirely done with a brush. These differences are not so pronounced as to suggest different hands, but rather, the same artist working in a slightly different manner. Both include bold lines with short perpendicular marks reinforcing deep folds, and similar short rows of hatchmarks, yet, the Saint Paul panel appears to have been done with less care and more speed than the Christ panel. As Maryan Ainsworth suggests (see Catalogue entry), it is possible that the difference could be related to the subject matter: Christ Appearing to His Mother presents a popular composition, and so the artist may have reproduced a drawing. A standing saint and kneeling donor was also a standard composition, but could more easily have been improvised in its details by this artist.

In general, the painted compositions follow the underdrawings, with a few minor adjustments, most noticeably, to the arms of the donor and the fingers of Saint Paul. In Christ Appearing to his Mother, the underdrawing for the circular window included a quatrefoil with a shield at the center that was not painted.

There seems to be another preliminary drawing or painting that is not apparent with infrared reflectography. In the Saint Paul panel there are several series of small paint losses that are located at some of the contours of the figures—around the head of Saint Paul and the contours of the drapery for example—but seem to follow a different background. (These losses are reintegrated in the current restoration of the painting but can be seen in the infrared reflectogram and the x-radiograph; fig. 12) In the upper right of the composition, losses are located in lines that seem reminiscent of architectural features: a capital at upper right, a lower, beamed roof, lower window sills, and some horizontals that could be related to details on a wall at the far right. On close examination the losses are not solid shapes but areas where the painting craquelure is particularly wide, accompanied by some minor losses with jagged edges down to the ground, as if there was some adherence issue in those spots. This phenomenon, combined with the fact that the losses seem to follow a different interior, could be explained by the paint not adhering properly to an underlying design, different from the underdrawing recorded in the reflectogram.[3]

Paint Layers: Technical examination revealed some inconsistencies in the painting technique, most significantly, the donor seems to have been painted in a manner different from the other three figures.

The heads of Saint Paul, Christ, and the Virgin were painted with a focused use of lead white, restricted to highlights, as can be seen in the x-radiographs (figs. 12, 13). In fact, it appears that the white was applied, nearly pure, as a final step; the highlights on the nose and around the eye sockets have some body and seem to be the uppermost paint layer (fig. 14) The artist often juxtaposed discrete strokes of lighter and darker paint, resulting in a good deal of contrast. The head of Saint Paul is the most pronounced example, but a similar approach can be seen in Christ and the Virgin as well. On the other hand, the head of the donor was painted with more blended passages of paint (fig. 15). The white was mixed in more broadly to the fleshtones resulting in less pronounced contrasts of light and dark. The disparity in the heads can also be seen in the x-radiograph. Furthermore, a blue pigment was mixed into the fleshtones of the donor; only a scattering of blue that gives a hardly perceptible cool cast to his skin, but not evident in the other three.

The eyes also provide a good example of the disparate approaches. In Saint Paul the paint was applied sparingly, with a translucent brown for the iris, and a high contrast of bright and dark to create the eyelids, and suggest volume within the eye sockets. In the eyes of the donor, the paint was applied in a more opaque fashion to the irises and the paint more blended around the eyes, lacking the contrast that gives the others such depth. The hands of the donor are also different from the other three, not only in painting technique but appearance, with shorter, thicker fingers in contrast to the unnaturally elongated fingers seen elsewhere. It is possible that a painting made from life, or from a portrait study, would have a slightly different character than depictions of standard types. Yet, the differences in how the paint is actually applied suggest a different hand altogether.

Within the architectural interiors some differences in technique are also apparent. The tiled floor in Christ Appearing to his Mother has a more effective recession back in space, with the marbling applied in an accomplished manner. On the other hand, the tiles in the Saint Paul panel are merely speckled and have a flat overall appearance. The columns in the Christ panel are also a more accomplished rendition of marble, while those in the Saint Paul are simply brown with minimal veining.

The gilded haloes of the three holy figures appear to be original and all rendered in a similar fashion, with mordant gilding over a greyish-beige colored mordant. Underneath the greyish mordant a pale yellow paint can be glimpsed, following the same design; possibly that the haloes were first sketched in with the yellow paint. The tiny halo on the decapitated Paul was also gilded, but with a dark brown mordant (fig. 16).

The paintings are generally in fair condition. Aside from the losses in the Saint Paul with a Donor panel, seemingly related to a preliminary design, there are only scattered paint losses on both paintings. There is some minor abrasion to the uppermost paint layers, primarily the warm brown passages. The green robe of Saint Paul has suffered abrasion, now integrated in the current restoration. It appears that some red lakes have faded in the Virgin’s purplish robe.

Sophie Scully 2022

[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, report dated May 23, 2014. The report can be found in the files of the Department of Paintings Conservation. “The youngest heartwood ring was formed out in the year 1463. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1472, more plausible is a felling date between 1476..1478….1482. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1474 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 1480 upwards.”
[2] 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, July 2022.
[3] Two somewhat similar examples of an underdrawing material possibly causing paint losses were noted in the Met’s Perino del Vaga oil on panel of The Holy Family with the Infant Saint John the Baptist (2011.26) and the Dieric Bouts tüchlein of The Entombment, The National Gallery, London (NG644). The underdrawing material was not identified in either and the mechanics of this possible phenomenon remains a question. See Michael Gallagher's Technical Notes for 2011.26 and David Bomford, Ashok Roy and Alistair Smith, “The Techniques of Dieric Bouts: Two Paintings Contrasted,” 10 (1986), p. 46.

?Paolo Pagagnotti, Florence (probably from the late 1480s); Marchese Gioacchino Ferroni, Florence (until about 1923); [Kleinberger, Paris and New York, by 1923–24; sold for $7500 to Friedsam]; Michael Friedsam, New York (1924–31)

Lexington, Va. Washington and Lee University. "The Metropolitan Museum of Art Loan Exhibit," October 30, 1950–January 15, 1951, no. 8 (right wing only).

Athens, Ga. Georgia Museum of Art, University of Georgia. February 15–April 5, 1951, no catalogue? (right wing only).

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. 14.

Florence. Palazzo Pitti, Galleria Palatina. "Firenze e gli antichi Paesi Bassi 1430–1530, dialoghi tra artisti: da Jan van Eyck a Ghirlandaio, da Memling a Raffaello . . .," June 20–October 26, 2008, no. 28.

Rome. Scuderie del Quirinale. "Memling: Rinascimento fiammingo," October 11, 2014–January 18, 2015, no. 33.

Max J. Friedländer. Letter to Herr Loebl [at Kleinberger & Co.]. December 11, 1923, ascribes these altarwings to the Master of the Saint Ursula Legend, about 1480; notes that a panel apparently from Rogier's hand with the same composition as our right wing, and nearly life-size figures, is probably still with Duveen [now National Gallery, Washington].

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 6, Memling und Gerard David. Berlin, 1928, p. 137, no. 117, pl. 52.

Max J. Friedländer in The Michael Friedsam Collection. [completed 1928], p. 142, as from the Marchese Ferroni collection, Florence; notes that the composition of the right wing can be traced back to Rogier.

Bryson Burroughs and Harry B. Wehle. "The Michael Friedsam Collection: Paintings." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 27, section 2 (November 1932), pp. 20, 22.

Martin Davies. National Gallery Catalogues: Early Netherlandish School. London, 1945, pp. 115–16 n. 2, notes that its design is similar to that of the "Christ Appearing to the Virgin" by a follower of Rogier in the National Gallery, London.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 76–77, ill., suppose that the name of the donor figure was Paul as he is shown here under the protection of Saint Paul the Apostle.

Ernest Lotthé. La pensée chrétienne dans la peinture flamande et hollandaise. Lille, 1947, vol. 2, pp. 271, 345, no. 649.

Erwin Panofsky. Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character. Cambridge, Mass., 1953, p. 463 n. 4 (to p. 263), mentions the right wing as an example of copies and variations of Rogier's composition of Christ Appearing to His Mother in the Granada-Miraflores altarpieces (including panel in MMA, 22.60.58).

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 65.

Pierre Bautier. "Le maître brugeois de la légende de sainte Ursule." Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts Bulletin 5 (March 1956), p. 4, no. 4.

Erik Larsen. Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York. Utrecht, 1960, pp. 76, 120–21, attributes them to an anonymous Bruges painter from the end of the 15th century; finds the right wing superior in quality and doubts that the two panels were the work of the same hand.

Colin Eisler. "Erik Larsen, Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York, 1960." Art Bulletin 46 (March 1964), p. 100, rejects Larsen's excision of these paintings from the oeuvre of the Master of Saint Ursula, noting that the artist "often worked hastily and many of his depictions of donors seem to have been added after the general composition was completed".

Georges Marlier. "Le Maître de la Légende de sainte Ursule." Jaarboek / Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten (1964), p. 37, no. 28, lists it with works whose attributions are open to discussion.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 6, Hans Memlinc and Gerard David. New York, 1971, p. 60, no. 117, pl. 141.

Martin Davies. Rogier van der Weyden: An Essay, with a Critical Catalogue of Paintings Assigned to Him and to Robert Campin. London, 1972, p. 215.

Elisabeth Heller. Das altniederländische Stifterbild. PhD diss., Universität München. Munich, 1976, p. 211, no. 231.

Lorne Campbell. Unpublished notes. 1981, notes that Paul was not a common name in the Netherlands and suggests the donor was a member of the Italian community at Bruges; judging from the style of his dress, suggests a date of about 1485.

Rainald Grosshans. "Rogier van der Weyden: Der Marienaltar aus der Kartause Miraflores." Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 23 (1981), p. 77 n. 126.

John Oliver Hand in John Oliver Hand and Martha Wolff. Early Netherlandish Painting. Washington, 1986, p. 254.

Molly Faries, Barbara Heller, and Daniel Levine. "The Recently Discovered Underdrawings of the Master of the Saint Ursula Legend's 'Triptych of the Nativity'." Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 62, no. 4 (1987), p. 19 n. 21.

Daniel Michael Levine. "The Bruges Master of the St. Ursula Legend Re-considered." PhD diss., Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, 1989, pp. 21, 47, 53, 72, 108–12, 118 n. 70, pp. 141, 166–71, 184, no. 5, dates our panels about 1470–75; notes that De Vos [see Ref. 1986] has suggested that these panels belonged with the panel at Cherbourg.

Michael Rohlmann. Auftragskunst und Sammlerbild: Altniederländische Tafelmalerei im Florenz des Quattrocento. PhD diss., Universität Köln. Alfter, Germany, 1994, p. 70, reconstructs an altarpiece with the Virgin and Child Enthroned in the Cherbourg Museum as the central panel, our panels as the interior wings, and two grisaille panels in the Museo Bandini, Fiesole, as the exterior wings; observes that not only do the wings have a Florentine provenance, but the coat of arms in the central panel are also Florentine, and identical with those in a Memling panel with the Virgin and Child Enthroned in the Uffizi, Florence.

Michael Rohlmann. "Memling's 'Pagagnotti Triptych'." Burlington Magazine 137 (July 1995), pp. 439–41, ill. (reconstruction view of interior [including our panels] and exterior of triptych), identifies the coats of arms in the Cherbourg panel and in Memling's Virgin and Child in the Uffizi as those of the Pagagnotti family of Florence and notes that Paolo Pagagnotti, "one of many widely-traveled Florentine merchants of the period" was clearly the patron of the triptych to which our interior wings belong; concludes that the Memling triptych was commissioned by his relative Benedetto Pagagnotti.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 255, ill.

Mary Sprinson de Jesús 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. 44, 69, 74, 122–24, 178, no. 14, ill. (color), places it in the late 1480s and identifies the panels as Saint Paul with Paolo Pagagnotti and Christ Appearing to His Mother.

Larry Silver. "Old-Time Religion: Bernart van Orley and the Devotional Tradition." Pantheon 56 (1998), p. 84 n. 36.

Dirk De Vos. Rogier van der Weyden: The Complete Works. New York, 1999, p. 232.

Michael Rohlmann. "Flanders and Italy, Flanders and Florence. Early Netherlandish Painting in Italy and its Particular Influence on Florentine Art: An Overview." Italy and the Low Countries—Artistic Relations: The Fifteenth Century. Florence, 1999, pp. 46–47.

Paula Nuttall. From Flanders to Florence: The Impact of Netherlandish Painting, 1400–1500. New Haven, 2004, pp. 75, 273 n. 80.

Bert W. Meijer et al. in Firenze e gli antichi Paesi Bassi 1430–1530, dialoghi tra artisti: da Jan van Eyck a Ghirlandaio, da Memling a Raffaello . . . Ed. Bert W. Meijer. Exh. cat., Palazzo Pitti, Galleria Palatina, Florence. Livorno, 2008, pp. 18, 25, 142, 150–53, no. 28, ill. (color).

Bert W. Meijer in Art and Illusions: Masterpieces of Trompe l'Oeil from Antiquity to the Present Day. Ed. Anna Maria Giusti. Exh. cat., Palazzo Strozzi. Florence, 2009, p. 234.

Trinita Kennedy in Trinita Kennedy and John Nolan. A Divine Light: Northern Renaissance Paintings from the Bob Jones University Museum and Gallery. Exh. cat., Frist Center for the Visual Arts. Nashville, 2011, p. 100 n. 4.

Griet Steyaert in L'héritage de Rogier van der Weyden: La peinture à Bruxelles 1450–1520. Ed. Brigitte de Patoul and Beatrijs Wolters van der Wey. Exh. cat., Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels. Tielt, 2013, p. 159.

Federica Veratelli in Scuderie del Quirinale, Rome. Memling: Rinascimento fiammingo. Ed. Till-Holger Borchert. Exh. cat.Milan, 2014, p. 63.

Till-Holger Borchert in Memling: Rinascimento fiammingo. Ed. Till-Holger Borchert. Exh. cat., Scuderie del Quirinale, Rome. Milan, 2014, p. 180, no. 33 (with central and exterior panels), ill. pp. 182–83 (color).

Griet Steyaert and Mark S. Tucker. "The Philadelphia 'Crucifixion', Dijon 'Annunciation', and Washington 'Apparition': A Carved Altarpiece's Painted Wings from the Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden." Boletín del Museo del Prado 32, no. 50 (2014), pp. 62–63, fig. 10 (color, 32.100.63b), state that The Met's "Christ Appearing to His Mother" and the version in Washington attributed to a follower of Rogier van der Weyden "seem to reflect a common, lost prototype," noting that infrared reflectography has revealed that in the Washington panel Christ was originally depicted without a staff and with left hand raised.