The Adoration of the Shepherds

The Artist: Marcellus Coffermans became a free master in the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke in 1549.[1] Between 1564/65 and 1578/79, he lived on the Lange Nieuwstraat, in a house called “the Mersman” that also served as his atelier and no longer exists today.[2] However, Coffermans signed his earliest known work, The Met’s Adoration of the Shepherds, MARCEL, HELMON, FE,[CIT], indicating that he came from Helmond, Brabant, where he is referred to in archival documents.[3]

There are several dated paintings falling between 1561 and 1575, signed mostly as “Marcellus Coffermans pinxit” or “Coffermans fecit”. These include a Penitent Saint Mary Magdalen of 1568 (Museo del Prado, Madrid), the Death of the Virgin Mary dated 1570 (private collection, Madrid), and an Annunciation Triptych dated 1575 (Cremer Collection, Dortmund). They are predominantly religious themes painted in a retardataire vein, derived from compositions by other fifteenth and early sixteenth-century painters, namely Rogier van der Weyden, Bernard van Orley, and the Master of Frankfurt, and by painter-engravers such as Martin Schongauer and Albrecht Dürer. Cofferman’s works could be called “imitations” of the works of these artists, as they were simply a source of inspiration, mainly for the composition and figural groupings, to which he added his own characteristic style.[4] Popular themes in well-known designs were mass-produced for open market sale and for export, especially to Spain.[5] Occasionally, Coffermans branched out assimilating the contemporary vogue for Italian motifs in such works as the monumental Penitent Mary Magdalen of 1568 (Museo del Prado, Madrid). For his mass-market production, Coffermans developed streamlined methods for efficiently making copies of various sizes and formats and on available standard-sized supports. In these efforts he doubtless was aided by his assistant from 1554 on, Lucas Edelinck, and perhaps also by his daughter, Isabella, a painter who joined the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke in 1575.

The Painting: The Gospel of Luke 2:1–14 recounts how having been refused a night’s lodging at an inn, Joseph and his pregnant wife, Mary, found a makeshift shelter in a stable for the birth of the Christ Child. With the ox and ass peering in from the sidelines, four local shepherds gather around the wondrous sight, one of their sheep resting to the side of the manger and turning its head to view the Child. Joseph and the Virgin Mary gesture their astonishment and adoration of the baby Jesus, while angels above sing their praises: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:9). In the far distance is a subsidiary scene of the Annunciation to the Shepherds. According to the scriptures, “And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger” (Luke 2: 9–12).

Added to the well-known biblical account was the popular rendition of the event by Saint Bridget of Sweden.[6] During a pilgrimage to Bethlehem in 1372, Bridget experienced visions of the birth of Christ that became part of the visual tradition of the Nativity in paintings and prints. Among the details she recorded in her diaries were images of the young Virgin with long flowing hair, the naked Christ Child, and the angels singing “wonderfully sweet and most dulcet songs.” Perhaps the most important feature of Bridget’s visions is the “great and ineffable light” emanating from the Christ Child, such that it surpassed the light from the candle held by Joseph. This presented a challenge to painters, some of whom, such as Gerard David, Michel Sittow, and a follower of Jan Joest of Kalkar (The Met, 1982.60.22), beautifully conveyed this exceptional detail of the narrative (see figs. 1–2 above). The painting under discussion follows many of the biblical and Saint Bridget vision features of the story, but omits the “great and ineffable light,” giving greater attention instead to the other elements of the presentation—the individual characterization of the local shepherds, the careful depiction of the stable animals, and the tender expressions of Joseph and Mary toward their newborn child.

The Attribution and Date: Walter Cohen (1912) was the first to assign this painting to Marcellus Coffermans. The signature on the stone slab at the lower right of the painting—MARCEL, HELMON, FE,[CIT]— indicates that the artist originally came from Helmond, a small town near the southern border of The Netherlands (Wehle and Salinger 1947). Some noted the “obvious influence of Hugo van der Goes and Gerard David” (Wehle and Salinger 1947, and Diaz Padrón 1981–84). This presumes a lost work by Hugo, which is a debatable assumption.[7] The influence of Bruges artists Gerard David and Michel Sittow, namely from the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna Nativity paintings (figs. 1, 2), appears less compelling when The Met panel is compared to certain examples of Antwerp artists of around 1510–20. Paintings of the Adoration of the Christ Child by a follower of Jan Joest from Kalkar (The Met, 1982.60.22) and especially by the Workshop of the Master of Frankfurt (The Met, 1975.1.116)— only two works among many of this popular design—show features assimilated by Coffermans in The Met painting: the U-shaped grouping of figures with the Christ Child anchoring the composition at its base, the standing and kneeling positions respectively of Joseph and the Virgin Mary at the left, angels or shepherds crowding in together at the right side and kneeling angels at the back of the manger, three angels above singing from a banderole with music, and a landscape viewed through the center of the painting into the distance beyond. In these features, Coffermans’s painting particularly derives from the example from the workshop of the Master of Frankfurt. Given this connection, Coffermans’s Adoration of the Shepherds most likely was produced in Antwerp under the influence of such precursors. This may well have been shortly after Coffermans was accepted into the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke in 1549. This would explain the artist’s signature on the painting—MARCEL, HELMON, FE,[CIT]—that identifies the origins of the newly arrived and established painter. After this time, Coffermans signs his works more often as “Marcellus Coffermans Fecit” or “Marcellus Coffermans pinxit.”

As several scholars have already suggested (Wehle and Salinger 1947, Wilenski 1960, De Vrij 2003), The Met painting is likely Coffermans’s earliest known signed work from around 1550.[8] We can see from the preparatory sketch made on the prepared panel a sense of confidence and directness of handling of the tool that comes from familiarity with the composition and the placement of the figures (see Technical Notes and fig. 3). With a model already in mind, Coffermans rapidly sketched in his design only deviating from it in the painted stage where he diminished the size of the Annunciation to the Shepherds from its larger underdrawn concept. Hopefully, the characteristics of Coffermans’s underdrawing, presented here for the first time, will serve as a standard or benchmark for the eventual technical study of other paintings attributed to him and his workshop. The expressive verve of the underdrawing is at odds with the subtly blended brushstrokes for the modeling of the flesh tones and the meticulous rendering and attention to tiny details that we find in the painted layers. Touches of shell gold on the borders of Joseph’s and Mary’s robes and here and there in the angels’ garments enhance the precious nature of this small gem.

The exquisite handling and embellishment of certain details with gold suggest a particular commission rather than a painting made for open market sale. The diminutive size of The Met panel (8 1/8 x 5 1/2 in., or 20.6 x 14 cm) indicates that it was most likely an independent work used for private devotional practice.[9] Subsequently, its design facilitated the production of larger works. Diaz Padrón (1981–84) noted a replica in a private collection in Madrid and another version on the art market in Madrid, both of which are the centerpieces of triptychs possibly by members of Coffermans’s workshop.

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2022

[1] Ph. Rombouts, De liggeren en andere historische archieven der Antwerpsche Sint Lucasgilden, 2 vols., Antwerpen 1864, vol. I, pp.164–65. The artist is referred to as Marcelis Coffermans, (de oude), scilder.
[2] Rombouts 1864, vol. 1, p.165.
[3] See De Vrij 2003, p. 28, and Koopstra 2020, p. 76–77.
[4] Hélène Mund, “Approche d’une terminologie relative à l’étude de la copie,” Annales d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie V (1983), pp. 19–31, especially p. 27.
[5] Marie Grappasonni, “Les Copies de Marcellus Coffermans pour le Marché Espagnol,” in Eduardo Lamas and David García Cueto, eds., Copies of the Flemish Masters in the Hispanic World (1500-1700), Flandes by Substitution, Turnhout, 2021, pp. 135–48.
[6] On Saint Bridget’s Revelation, see Hendrik Cornell, The Iconography of the Nativity of Christ, translated by Anna-Stina Cornell, Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift, Uppsala, 1924, pp. 1–21.
[7] Ludwig von Baldass proposed that the nocturnal Nativity was an invention of Hugo van der Goes. See Ludwig von Baldass, “Mabuses ‘Heilige Nacht,’ eine freie Kopie nach Hugi van der Goes,” Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 35, (1920–21), pp. 39–43.
[8] Cohen (1912) apparently confused The Met painting with another Nativity by Coffermans that was with the art dealer Böhler in Munich and carries the date 1561.
[9] For related version, see also De Vrij 2003, nos. 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D.

Support: The support was constructed from a single plank of what appears to be oak, with the grain oriented vertically. The panel retains its original reverse and measures 3 mm thick on average. The original edges are preserved at the top and right, while the left and bottom edges appear to have been only slightly trimmed. The panel was seemingly prepared and painted before it was framed, as was increasingly common in the 16th century. The slight disturbance of the paint near some edges suggests that the frame was installed before the paint had completely dried.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a white ground. There appears to be an additional white priming layer containing lead white; broad brushstrokes of a radio-opaque material are evident in the x-radiograph, seemingly related to the priming (see fig. 4 above).

Examination with infrared reflectography revealed the presence of an extensive underdrawing, executed using a dry material (fig. 3). The artist used the underdrawing to plan all the important contours of the composition. He appears to have been working freehand, and with some speed. There are areas where the lines are sketchy, particularly in drapery, and occasionally contours are gone over twice. The lines that seem to have been made the most rapidly sometimes end with hooks as if the artist was already moving toward the next line before picking up his drawing implement.

In his painted composition, the artist made a few changes to his underdrawn design. These are generally minor adjustments to contours, or even the position or angle of a head, as in the shepherd to far right or the ox at center. The artist also added a brown satchel to the shepherd second from the right. One significant change was made to the Annunciation to the Shepherds in the background: the angel was shown larger and flying in from the left in the underdrawing, and the two shepherds were drawn at a larger scale and positioned closer to the foreground, down the hill and to the left. The decision to move the scene further back in space necessitated other shifts: the vertical beam of the stable had to be moved further to the right and the underdrawn diagonal beam was omitted.

Paint Layers: The precision and attention to minuscule details are among the most notable features of the painting technique. The artist used incredibly tiny brushstrokes to create details; indeed, these are best observed under magnification. For example, he included the highlights on the pearls studding an angel’s robe, picked out the weave of the shepherds’ hats, individual strands of hair, and even highlights on eyes that are only a few millimeters in width. Moreover, he used the lighting on these tiny details to accentuate the three-dimensionality of the scene.

The paint is highly blended, with few brushstrokes apparent, except under magnification. The fleshtones were painted using a good amount of lead white mixed in throughout, as can be seen in the x-radiograph. The artist balanced the white with ruddy brown glazes, which gives the figures warmth. He also used a dark brown paint at the contours of the fleshtones to help give visual weight to the tiny figures. The artist introduced few changes once he began painting.

The artist used shell gold in several passages but very subtly, such as in the golden details on the brocade of the angel at top right and at the hems of Joseph’s and Mary’s robes. In some places, the gold is so minimal that it gives only a slight glimmer to the composition, as in the highlights on the changeant robe of the angel at center right.

The painting is very well preserved. The artist appears to have used a good deal of red lake to create varying red and purple hues, but it has faded, altering the color palette somewhat. The robe of the second shepherd from right, which now appears to be light bluish-grey, was seemingly a pale lavender in color. And the changeant robe of the angel at center right was likely a shade of purple. It also appears that some red lake has faded from the changeant robe of the angel at top right. The Virgin’s blue robe has darkened with age and been somewhat abraded; the folds of the drapery are now difficult to appreciate. It appears that her mantle was painted with azurite and the robe with ultramarine; the difference in hue between the two blues is still somewhat apparent. The shell gold is slightly rubbed in places but is generally in good condition.

Sophie Scully 2022

Inscription: Signed (lower right): MARCEL.HELMON.FE[CIT]

J. Pierpont Morgan, New York (by 1912–d. 1913; his estate, 1913–17)

Walter Cohen in Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler. Ed. Ulrich Thieme. Vol. 7, Leipzig, 1912, p. 172, as certainly by Coffermans.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, p. 154, ill., note that Coffermans uses the same elements as Van der Goes and Gerard David, but in a "decidedly old-fashioned" manner for a work dated about 1550; observe that the signature "MARCEL HELMON. FEC." suggests that "Coffermans came originally from the small town of Helmont near the southern border of the present-day Netherlands".

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 19.

Erik Larsen. Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York. Utrecht, 1960, pp. 93–94.

R. H. Wilenski. Flemish Painters, 1430–1830. New York, 1960, vol. 1, pp. 126, 313, vol. 2, pl. 401, does not connect the "Marcel Helmon" of the inscription with Coffermans; says the picture may have been painted in Antwerp about 1550.

Friedrich Winkler. Das Werk des Hugo van der Goes. Berlin, 1964, p. 172 n. 2, compares the group of angels in this panel with that in Provost's "Virgin and Child" (now MMA 1976.201.17) and in the central panel of the altarpiece by the Master of Evora in the Museu Regional, Evora, Portugal; notes that the latter two compositions are based on a lost work of Hugo van der Goes.

Edward Morris and Martin Hopkinson. Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool: Foreign Catalogue. [Liverpool], 1977, text vol., p. 146, ascribe a "Nativity" in the Walker Art Gallery (no. 1993) to Coffermans on the basis of our signed picture of the same subject.

Matías Díaz Padrón. "Identificación de algunas pinturas de Marcelus Coffermans." Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique Bulletin 1–3 (1981–84), p. 49, fig. 11, says this belongs to Coffermans's style, and shows the obvious influence of Hugo van der Goes and Gerard David; mentions a signed replica in a private collection in Madrid, and another version on the art market in Madrid.

Walter S. Gibson. "Mirror of the Earth": The World Landscape in Sixteenth-century Flemish Painting. Princeton, 1989, p. 95 n. 9, states [erroneously] that Coffermans signed his name as "Lucas Helmon".

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 275, ill. p. 274.

D. Beaujean in Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon: die bildenden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker. Vol. 20, Munich, 1998, p. 142, lists it among accepted works of the artist.

Marc Rudolf de Vrij. Marcellus Coffermans. Amsterdam, 2003, pp. 36–38, 97–98, no. 1, notes that it is the artist's earliest dated painting.

Anna Koopstra in Lucas Gassel van Helmond: Meester van het landschap. Ed. Anna Koopstra. Exh. cat., Museum Helmond. Zwolle, 2020, pp. 76–77, discusses the possible relationship between Lucas Gassel and Marcellus Coffermans in archival documents.