The Adoration of the Magi

Entry

Four of the paintings attributed to Geertgen tot Sint Jans are of The Adoration of the Magi (Matthew 2:1-12). In addition to the Amsterdam panel it is the subject of the centre panel of a triptych in Prague and of two other works in Cleveland and Winterthur.⁴ All four scenes are derived to some extent from Hugo van der Goes’s Monforte Altarpiece of c. 1470 in Berlin (fig. a). The Amsterdam panel is the only one to reverse the scene from left to right. However, Melchior’s pose and the small figure holding a chalice behind him are convincingly similar to their counterparts in the Monforte Altarpiece. When the Amsterdam painting was last restored in 2007-08 it was found that Caspar’s bonnet originally leaned against an object which had been completely scratched off, apart from minute scattered remnants of brown paint. That element, most probably a rock, also seems to have been based on the putative model by Van der Goes. The figure of Joseph beside the Virgin and Child on the right may have been borrowed from another composition by Van der Goes that is now lost.⁵

The three kings presenting their gifts occupy the foreground of the Amsterdam Adoration. The Christ Child, seated on the Virgin’s lap, is extending his arm towards the kneeling, oldest king, Caspar, who is offering him a goblet filled with gold coins. The identification and ages of the three kings are not always consistent, particularly in the German literature.⁶ The names used here are based on the inscriptions identifying the kings in an Adoration of the Magi by Jan Gossart and two others by Joos van Cleve.⁷ The age differences between the kings are sometimes difficult to make out. In general it is assumed that Balthazar is the youngest, followed by Melchior, with Caspar as the oldest.⁸ The two other kings stand behind Caspar in the Amsterdam panel. Melchior, with long dark hair and a beard, is holding a gold chalice in his right hand, while the black King Balthazar has a crystal goblet. Starting in the late middle ages, the three kings were associated with the continents known at the time, with Melchior representing Asia, Balthazar Africa and Caspar Europe.⁹ The belief that the kings came from different parts of the world is underscored in the background by the three directions from which they are arriving with their retinues. Matching the kings’ positions in the foreground, there is Africa on the left, Asia in the middle and Europe on the right. Oddly, though, Caspar is riding a dromedary, which is usually associated with Africa.

The Rijksmuseum bought this painting as an autograph Geertgen tot Sint Jans in 1904. However, by 1909 Balet was already questioning this attribution on the basis of the lesser quality of the work, and several other scholars also expressed their doubts.¹⁰ In 1937, Davies classified it as a workshop product.¹¹ In 1980, Châtelet followed Oettinger by giving it to the Master of the Brunswick Diptych, whom some identify with Jacob Jansz.¹² However, it can be concluded that the panel with The Adoration of the Magi did indeed come from Geertgen’s workshop from the findings of the technical examination. As in the core works by Geertgen in Vienna, the underdrawing was made with both dry and wet media. He corrected the first, wet underdrawing in the Vienna paintings with chalk.¹³ In the Amsterdam Adoration he appears to have used the two media in a different way. The religious scene in the foreground was prepared with the brush in a wet medium, while a dry medium was used for the background, which was sketchily defined with contours and hatchings (fig. b). The artist was clearly still searching for the correct positions for the small figures and houses. Comparison of the underdrawing with the painted surface reveals all sorts of modifications. The most striking one is that the dromedary was prepared as a horse in the underdrawing, which the artist decided to change into a more exotic animal in the painted stage.

The underdrawing of the three kings, Joseph and the Virgin and Child was applied with the brush, and could only partly be revealed with infrared reflectography. In this respect it is closer to the underdrawing of smaller works in Geertgen’s oeuvre, such as The Man of Sorrows in Utrecht and The Adoration of the Magi in Cleveland.¹⁴ The dark blue cloaks of Melchior and the Virgin in the Amsterdam panel were impenetrable to infrared reflectography, which suggests that they were underpainted with grey or black. This undermodelling was found in paint samples from other works in the Geertgen group, and appears to be typical of the artist.¹⁵ The clothing of Caspar and Joseph was transparent to infrared reflectography. The underdrawing of the folds of these red cloaks consists of schematic and rather thick contour lines (fig. c). The bottom of Caspar’s cloak and the white part of the dress by the Virgin’s feet were prepared with Geertgen’s distinctive jagged lines.¹⁶ In a few places, such as the bottom part of Joseph’s cloak, the artist added a few short hatchings to suggest shadows. Little if any underdrawing could be found beneath the faces, as is the case with other works by the master, such as the triptych in Prague and the panels in Vienna. The modifications on the surface relative to the underdrawing are limited to a few minor shifts of position. The almost total absence of modifications in the underdrawing itself, and between the underdrawing and the painted surface in the foreground scene, points to the use of a model.¹⁷ This is made even more likely considering the similarities in the figure types, poses and arrangement on the picture surface with the three other Adorations by the artist.

The detailing that can still be seen in Joseph’s face has been lost in large parts of the composition over the course of time. That being said, the results of the examination with infrared reflectography and the study of the painting technique and the paint structure show that the Amsterdam Adoration of the Magi is closely related to other autograph works in Geertgen’s oeuvre, such as the Vienna panels (c. 1484), the Prague triptych and The Man of Sorrows in Utrecht. This makes it likely that the panel was executed in Geertgen’s workshop under his supervision, or by the master himself, around 1480-85. That is consistent with the dendrochronology, which suggests a date no earlier than 1479. Since nothing is known about the workshop or possible assistants, the Rijksmuseum has decided to retain the traditional attribution to Geertgen tot Sint Jans.

(Micha Leeflang)