and studio
Triptych with the Adoration of the Magi
Provenance
Private collection, Valladolid, since at least 19th century
Little is known about the history of this unpublished triptych by Pieter Coecke van Aelst and his studio, which recently resurfaced from a private collection in Valladolid (where it had remained for at least forty years). The triptych was probably produced for export to Spain, where many other triptychs by Coecke and his studio survive in churches, palaces, museums, and private collections.
Coecke was one of the most important artists in sixteenth-century Antwerp. A painter, draughtsman, and designer of tapestry, glass, and woodcut, Coecke was—in Elizabeth Cleland’s words—‘a true embodiment of the Renaissance designer.’ Despite his contemporary fame, Coecke’s subsequent reputation has been, undeservedly, modest—in some part due to misattribution. The precise scope of Coecke’s output remains unclear. In 1935 Max Friedländer ascribed to Coecke nineteen paintings, increasing to twenty-two in the revised 1975 English translation of his text. Georges Marlier, meanwhile, attributed a remarkable 278 panel paintings and 72 drawings to the artist and his workshop in his 1966 publication, the only detailed monograph on Coecke. Coecke’s paintings received renewed scholarly attention in 2014, when seven of them were included in the Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition, Grand Design: Pieter Coecke van Aelst and Renaissance Tapestry. In the exhibition catalogue, curator Maryan Ainsworth traced the evolution of Coecke’s painting from 1518 to the 1530s onwards, attending, in particular, to his under-drawing method as gleaned from infrared reflectography.
Conspicuously absent from Ainsworth’s catalogue are the Adoration of the Magi triptychs that Coecke’s studio produced in vast quantities in the 1520s and 1530s. The subject of the Adoration was extremely popular in sixteenth-century Antwerp, representing what Dan Ewing terms ‘its signature iconography.’ The appeal of the subject can be explained by the city’s mercantile power. As early as the 1520s, Antwerp was the most important port of the Western hemisphere, housing hundreds of European merchants from the likes of Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, Holland, England, and Germany. It is unsurprising, then, that the citizens of Antwerp likened themselves to the three Magi—Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar—who, travelling from across the globe to bring gifts to the Son of God, were considered the earliest merchants. Of the few thousand Adoration triptychs originating in the first half of the sixteenth century in Antwerp, some were painted on spec by unknown artists, while others were commissioned from major painters such as Coecke. He and his studio undoubtedly popularised the subject, rendering it in a multitude of variations.
The earliest Adoration triptych that can be attributed to Coecke (fig. 1) registers the influence of Jan van Dornicke (d. 1527), in whose studio he trained. Like subsequent versions in the collection of William II of the Netherlands, and in the Harvard Art Museums (fig. 2), the triptych depicts the Magi on a central panel, before the ruin of a Renaissance palace, while the wings represent further scenes from the life of Christ, namely the Nativity (left), and the Presentation in the Temple (right). The small, slightly stiff figures are stylistically close to those by the Master of 1518, as shown by his triptych in Brussels (fig. 3). In the late 1520s Coecke moved away from the cramped compositions of his earliest Adoration triptychs, limiting himself to the subject’s protagonists (the Holy Family and three Magi)—as in the Princeton, Genoa, and Los Angeles versions.
In the 1530s Coecke expanded his Adoration to cover all three wings of his triptychs. The result was more dynamic and experimental compositions such as the present example. Here Coecke isolated and enlarged two of the protagonists—Balthasar (left) and Joseph (right)—placing them at the forefront of the painting. In another variation, in the Museo Nacional del Prado, Coecke relegated Melchior (left) and Balthasar (right) to the wings, creating a triangle in the centre of the composition where Caspar, Joseph, and the Virgin and Child appear in middle distance. For the present Adoration Coecke re-used models from earlier paintings. The figure of Melchior, for example, is based on a previous composition in the Harvard Art Museum, itself modelled on a version by the Master of 1518 in Brussels. This re-circulation suggests that Coecke used model drawings from his studio, although none of these—as Stijn Alsteens points out—survive. It is even possible that Coecke produced detailed drawings for certain high-profile devotional paintings, as suggested by a triptych drawing in the British Museum, London, showing scenes from the life of Saint John the Baptist (figs. 4-5).
This Adoration triptych is exceptional for the condition of its surface and the quality of its colors, which stand out in ultraviolet images. Infrared reflectography, exposing the under-drawing, has given crucial insight into the triptych’s genesis, including issues of chronology and attribution (notably, the extent of studio involvement) (figs. 6-7).
The main figures—the Virgin and Child, the Magi, and Joseph—are rendered in bold and fluent under-drawing in brush and paint containing carbon black. Although there is a certain looseness to the lines, their detail and skill—exemplified by the parallel hatching of the draperies—suggest that the draughtsman had precise model drawings at hand. Comparing the under-drawing to the finished painting reveals considerable changes to the composition, particularly in the heads and hands of the figures. It is evident, for example, that the painter moved Caspar and the Christ Child forward, creating a more dynamic interaction between the two, and that he shifted the eyes of the Virgin downward, resulting in a more demure expression (figs. 8-9). There are also several adjustments to Balthasar, including the tilting of his head leftwards, and the repositioning of his headdress and right hand (figs. 10-11). Moreover, Joseph’s face was tilted upward, giving him a more active role as a witness to the miracle taking place in the central panel (figs. 12-13).
All of these changes occurred during the initial stage of painting, although there are a few instances where the under-drawing was rendered in paint before being modified—so-called pentimenti. For example, the right foot and cloak hem of Melchior were adjusted during a second painting stage. Coecke alone must have done these pentimenti, although it is possible that he left the draperies to an assistant, given their distinct shading. Generally, the facility of the under-drawing leaves no doubt as to its author; it fits the style of Coecke like a glove. The under-drawing has the same characteristics as those identified by Ainsworth of his autograph paintings around 1530, especially the Holy Family in Leuven (fig. 14) and Saint Luke Painting the Virgin in Nîmes. The under-drawing of the former—dateable to ca. 1530-32—very closely resembles that of the Adoration, particularly the faces of Joseph, the Christ Child, and the hovering angel where pentimenti are visible. The under-drawing and figures of the Adoration, in particular the heads and hands, must have been produced by Coecke himself, at the same time. In contrast to the Holy Family, where the style of under-drawing is similar throughout, in the Adoration powerful brush under-drawing is limited to the main figures. The different style of under-drawing for such areas as the Renaissance ruin, the smaller figures, and the landscape background suggest that these details were left to an assistant. As Ainsworth and Linda Jansen show, Coecke had several assistants in his Antwerp studio, and worked with a landscape specialist for some of his paintings. One example is the Saint-Truiden Altarpiece—now dispersed across several collections—where the under-drawing for the landscape is in sketchy black chalk, while that for the main figures is in controlled brush recognisable as Coecke’s hand (figs. 15-16). Such collaboration seems to have been Coecke’s standard practice, inevitable in light of his enormous output and his short lifespan of under twenty-five years of active production.
We are grateful to Peter van den Brink for his assistance in the preparation of this entry.