拍品专文
In this intimately scaled panel by Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen and his workshop, two scenes from the early life of Christ—separated by pilasters decorated with intricate grotesque motifs—are depicted: the Presentation in the Temple and the Purification of Mary as prescribed by the Law of Moses, both of which are recounted in the Gospel of Luke (2:22-39). Beyond the complicated temple architecture, an ornate fountain occupies the courtyard – a symbolic reference to the Christian promise of eternal life. The use of architectural conceits to separate narrative space and time also appears in another panel by Jacob Cornelisz. now in the Portland Art Museum (fig. 1, inv. no. 61.59). Datable to 1517, it depicts the Circumcision of Christ in the foreground and the Agony in the Garden beyond an architectural space defined by similarly decorated pilasters. Elements of the present composition—particularly the Virgin, the figure of Joseph, the architectural altar, and their spatial relationship—may also derive from Jacob Cornelisz’s prints, such as his Presentation in the Temple of 1513. Peter van den Brink has recently suggested that the present panel is a fragment from the upper left register of the central panel of a much larger triptych (loc. cit.), perhaps (but only as a matter of pure speculation) dedicated to the life of the Virgin, with the Death of the Virgin or Coronation of the Virgin at its center. This secondary placement within a larger composition likely accounts for the more painterly technique seen here relative to Jacob Cornelisz’s typical draftsmanship with more sharply defined details.
This painting was long considered to be by the Master of the Berlin Sketchbook, as first proposed by Karel G. Boon, Director of the Amsterdam Rijksprentenkabinet (see R. Fritz, loc. cit.). The anonymous master was named after a sketchbook in the Berlin Kupferstichkabinett, which contains drawings by a single, distinctive hand, including numerous motifs and compositions connected with the workshop of Jacob Cornelisz. of the 1520s. One such sheet includes similar fountain designs, although none directly correspond to the one depicted here. It had accordingly been suggested that the unknown master was an assistant in Jacob Cornelisz’s Antwerp workshop, and that the sketchbook served as a record of his motifs and compositions (see J. Carroll, 'Master of the Berlin Sketchbook,' Grove Art Online, retrieved 1 Dec. 2025). More recently, Daantje Meuwissen has identified the author of the Master of the Berlin Sketchbook as Jacob Cornelisz’s grandson, the Amsterdam painter, printmaker and cartographer Cornelis Anthonisz (1500/ 05-58; see D. Meuwissen, `Attributing the Berlin Sketchbook to Cornelis Anthonisz’, Simiolus, XXXIX, no. 1⁄2, 2017, pp. 15-43).
When the present painting resurfaced at auction in 2010, Daantje Meuwissen and Jane Carroll rejected the attribution to the Master of the Berlin Sketchbook and proposed instead that the work was painted by an unknown artist in Oostsanen’s workshop in the 1510 who also worked on the Naples Nativity of 1512 (Museo di Capodimonte; loc. cit.). Meuwissen suggested the present work dates to somewhat later, around 1515-18, on the basis of its similarities to the painted ceiling in the Alkmaar St. Lawrence Church of 1518 and the 1517 triptych of the Adoration of the Magi in Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-A-4706), while Carroll noted connections to certain woodcuts by Jacob Cornelisz. (loc. cit.). More recently, Peter van den Brink has agreed with Meuwissen’s proposed dated of around 1515-18, citing the present panel's closeness to the aforementioned Adoration triptych and Portland Circumcision. Both of these works, he notes, share an `emphasis on the box-like architectural structure and a rather rigid sense of perspective’ and include a similar assembly of elegantly dressed figures.
We are grateful to Peter van den Brink for kindly sharing his research on this painting and for proposing the attribution on the basis of firsthand inspection (private communication, December 2025).
This painting was long considered to be by the Master of the Berlin Sketchbook, as first proposed by Karel G. Boon, Director of the Amsterdam Rijksprentenkabinet (see R. Fritz, loc. cit.). The anonymous master was named after a sketchbook in the Berlin Kupferstichkabinett, which contains drawings by a single, distinctive hand, including numerous motifs and compositions connected with the workshop of Jacob Cornelisz. of the 1520s. One such sheet includes similar fountain designs, although none directly correspond to the one depicted here. It had accordingly been suggested that the unknown master was an assistant in Jacob Cornelisz’s Antwerp workshop, and that the sketchbook served as a record of his motifs and compositions (see J. Carroll, 'Master of the Berlin Sketchbook,' Grove Art Online, retrieved 1 Dec. 2025). More recently, Daantje Meuwissen has identified the author of the Master of the Berlin Sketchbook as Jacob Cornelisz’s grandson, the Amsterdam painter, printmaker and cartographer Cornelis Anthonisz (1500/ 05-58; see D. Meuwissen, `Attributing the Berlin Sketchbook to Cornelis Anthonisz’, Simiolus, XXXIX, no. 1⁄2, 2017, pp. 15-43).
When the present painting resurfaced at auction in 2010, Daantje Meuwissen and Jane Carroll rejected the attribution to the Master of the Berlin Sketchbook and proposed instead that the work was painted by an unknown artist in Oostsanen’s workshop in the 1510 who also worked on the Naples Nativity of 1512 (Museo di Capodimonte; loc. cit.). Meuwissen suggested the present work dates to somewhat later, around 1515-18, on the basis of its similarities to the painted ceiling in the Alkmaar St. Lawrence Church of 1518 and the 1517 triptych of the Adoration of the Magi in Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-A-4706), while Carroll noted connections to certain woodcuts by Jacob Cornelisz. (loc. cit.). More recently, Peter van den Brink has agreed with Meuwissen’s proposed dated of around 1515-18, citing the present panel's closeness to the aforementioned Adoration triptych and Portland Circumcision. Both of these works, he notes, share an `emphasis on the box-like architectural structure and a rather rigid sense of perspective’ and include a similar assembly of elegantly dressed figures.
We are grateful to Peter van den Brink for kindly sharing his research on this painting and for proposing the attribution on the basis of firsthand inspection (private communication, December 2025).
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
