Master of the Life of the Virgin
NG 706 
The Presentation in the Temple

Susan Foister, 2024

Extracted from:
Susan Foister; with Rachel Billinge, Marika Spring and Lea Viehweger; and contributions by Lorne Campbell and Allison Goudie, The German Paintings before 1800 (London: National Gallery Global and Yale University Press, 2024).

Oil on wood (probably oak), 85.3 × 108.7 cm, painted surface 84 × 108.7 cm

Inscriptions

On the Virgin’s halo: S... Ma... Mat.. Dei; on retable: ANGLĀE and Hebrew letters on the altar cloth (see below).

Provenance

The picture was one of a group of eight owned by the brothers Sulpiz (1783 –1854) and Melchior Boisserée (1786 –1851) which they acquired on 12 March 1812.¹ Since the brothers referred to them as the ‘Ursulabilder’ and ‘Leben der Maria aus St Ursula’, they were evidently from the church of St Ursula in Cologne.² They are conceivably to be identified with a series of paintings that were in the building prior to its dissolution as a collegiate church in 1804.³ In 1815 the Boisserées exchanged NG 706 with a painting supposed to be by Karel van Mander belonging to Count Joseph von Rechberg (1769–1833).⁴ NG 706 was acquired from Rechberg by Prince Ludwig Kraft Ernst von Oettingen‐Wallerstein (1791–1870) in February 1816.⁵ In the ‘Grundbuch’ and 1826 and 1827 catalogues of the collection, NG 706 was said to be by Israel van Meckenem.⁶ It was among the Oettingen‐Wallerstein pictures sent to London in 1848 which became the property of Prince Albert (1819–1861) in 1851. NG 706 was at Kensington Palace in 1854.⁷ In 1863 it was presented to the National Gallery by Queen Victoria at the prince consort’s wish.

Related Works

Seven oil on oak panels by the Master of the Life of the Virgin are in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich:

• (1) Meeting at the Golden Gate, 85.3 × 106.8 cm (fig. 23).

• (2) The Birth of the Virgin, 85.3 × 109.5 cm (fig. 24).

• (3) The Presentation of the Virgin, 85.4 × 109.5 cm (fig. 25).

• (4) The Marriage of the Virgin, 85.4 × 109.5 cm (fig. 26).

• (5) The Annunciation, 85.3 × 105.2 cm (fig. 27).

• (6) The Visitation, 85 × 105.1 cm (fig. 28).

• (7) The Assumption, 85.7 × 110 cm (fig. 30).

Exhibitions

Exhibited for sale with other pictures belonging to Prince Ludwig Kraft Ernst von Oettingen‐Wallerstein, London, Kensington Palace 1848 (64); Manchester 1857 (provisional catalogue 438, definitive catalogue 379); NG 1977 (13); NG 1993 (16).

Technical Notes

The Oettingen‐Wallerstein pictures were restored by Andreas Eigner before 1842 but no details are recorded.⁸ The painting was cleaned and restored in 1957. It is in good condition, with only small damages associated with a vertical split approximately 45 cm from the right edge. The gilding is in relatively good condition, except the gilded applied relief brocade, which is rather more damaged; it has been regilded and the patterns are repainted in red over their original colours (see further below). The gilding of the infant Christ’s halo is rubbed, exposing the yellow‐brown mordant, and much of the visible gold leaf is not original.

The support is a wood panel (probably oak) approximately 3 mm thick, with vertical grain. Its height is 85.2 cm at the left edge and 85.3 cm at the right; its width 108.7 cm at the top and 108.2 cm at the bottom. The panel construction is not easy to discern but it is clearly made from several boards. There may be a join approximately 39 cm from the left edge and another 20.8 cm from the right edge (leaving a central section 48.6 cm wide), and it is not impossible that there might be other joins in addition. The panel has been thinned and cradled; strips of non‐original wood are attached to all four edges. However, unpainted edges where the wood would originally have been covered by an engaged frame are visible at the top and bottom. Most of the unpainted edge has been cut from the left side, although traces remain at the bottom corner. At the right, about 1 cm more seems to have been cut (based on the position of the punched border along part of the top edge, which it can be assumed was originally central on the panel), presumably including removal of some of the original paint (see below).

A plain weave canvas, with a thread count from the X‐radiograph of 12 × 14 threads per centimetre (fig. 1), is present between the panel and the ground. It has irregular, rather frayed edges and is smaller than the painted surface, reaching the right edge but ending several centimetres from the left, top and bottom edges. The white ground contains chalk; there is some evidence in some samples of a thin lead white priming.

Extensive underdrawing was revealed using infrared reflectography (fig. 4), some of which is visible to the naked eye where the paint is thinnest and has become more transparent on ageing. The drawing is in a liquid medium, applied with a brush. The draperies are defined by bold fold lines often ending in short hooks; parallel hatching and crosshatching is used to denote shadows. The altar is also drawn, including the two bronze supporters, and there is hatching to indicate cast shadows in various parts of the floor, for instance between Mary and Simeon. The drawing has been followed closely, with the exception of a number of minor changes, for instance to the eyes of several of the figures; the doves were painted larger than they were drawn; and Simeon’s foot was originally in a different position on the step. The woman standing next to the altar on the right has a line drawn across her forehead indicating a veil which is not present in the painted surface. The headdress of the man fourth from the right has been altered.

Incised lines mark out the edges of the figures against the gold background; only one figure is painted over the gold, the young man third from left, apparently therefore a late addition. The outline of the head and shoulders of the Christ Child is also incised. The Virgin’s halo was marked out with compasses. Incised lines mark the positions of the floor tiles.

The painting has a gilded background; the gold leaf is [page 637] [page 638] applied to a very thin orange‐red layer of red earth or bole. Across the top is a punched border 2.5 cm wide (fig. 2), with a repeated trefoil design below (fig. 3). The border stops 29.8 cm from the left edge and 28.8 cm from the right, suggesting around 1 cm more has been cut from the panel at the right edge than at the left. Beyond the punched border, in the upper corners, there is a difference in the appearance of the gold. The candlesticks on the altar are mordant‐gilded ; the yellow‐brown mordant contains mainly yellow earth, with some lead white (as large agglomerates), lead‐tin yellow, a little red earth and colourless powdered glass.⁹ The same mordant was used for the mordant gilding around the hem of the Virgin’s cloak (fig. 5).

The woman at the left with the doves wears a cloth‐of‐gold dress of gilded applied relief brocade, consisting of sheets 8.9 cm in width. Traces of the original dark blue azurite used to paint the pattern are visible in places beneath the regilding and red overpaint (fig. 6). The presence of the tin leaf forming the relief and its wax filling was confirmed in a sample. The sheets of relief brocade were adhered using a pinkish adhesive containing chalk and red lead in oil. They were gilded using the same yellow‐brown mordant used elsewhere. The cloth‐of‐gold robe of the man fourth from the right is also gilded applied relief brocade, with the original pattern being in black, now regilded and overpainted in red.

Analysis of the paint medium in three samples indicated that linseed oil had been used for the green paint of the dress of the woman at the far left and for the mordant for the gilding on the applied relief brocade robe of the figure fourth from the right, while heat‐bodied walnut oil had been used in the white paint of a floor tile.¹⁰

The Virgin’s cloak is painted with azurite of high quality. Simeon’s cloak is represented as cloth‐of‐gold but is painted rather than gilded, with a reddish base colour containing lead‐tin yellow, red lake and lead white. The dark blue pattern is azurite alone. The gold threads are painted using thin fluid strokes containing lead‐tin yellow, grading to a pinkish hue in the shadows. The same paints were used for the curling gold threads on the tassel, exploiting the handling properties of mixtures rich in lead‐tin yellow to make very fine beaded or broken strokes with the tip of a brush (fig. 7). The green robe of the woman at the left edge is underpainted with verdigris mixed with lead white and a little lead‐tin yellow; the final glaze is verdigris alone. Her purple sleeves are underpainted with azurite, lead white and perhaps red lake, with thick strokes of red lake on top in the shadows and a scumble of pink (red lake and lead white) in the lighter areas. The green cloak of the woman on the right holding a bird is underpainted with opaque green containing verdigris and lead‐tin yellow with a little azurite, giving a slightly different hue; the final verdigris glaze is blotted to make a thin even layer. Her white dress is patterned using texture created by the brushstrokes (fig. 8). The voluminous sleeves of the man fourth from the right are lead‐tin yellow, red lake and black in varying proportions. Saint Joseph’s purple‐grey robe is underpainted with a mixture of red lake, azurite and lead white, then glazed with a very thin layer of red lake, again blotted to make it thin and even (fig. 9).

Subject

The subject is the Presentation in the Temple. After the birth of Christ the Virgin Mary followed Jewish ritual, according to which she came to the synagogue with the offering of two doves which were, according to Jewish law, allowed as a substitute for giving up the first‐born son for service in the temple.¹¹ According to the New Testament, Luke 2: 22–39, the time was that of her purification; medieval Christian texts stressed that because of the miraculous birth she had no need of purification, but followed the ritual out of humility:¹² ‘And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord … And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two very young pigeons’ (Luke 2: 22; 2: 24). On the left, a bare‐headed young woman holds two turtledoves (figs 10, 11), and on the right another woman holds a single dove (fig. 8). The central episode shows the Virgin (fig. 12) handing the infant Jesus to Simeon who, looking down at him (fig. 13), ‘should not see death, before he has seen the Lord’s Christ’ (2: 26). When the child was brought to him in the temple he ‘took him up in his arms and blessed God, and said Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou has prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel’ (2: 28–31).

On the left of the Virgin is Joseph, who holds a candle in his left hand while his right hand is in his purse (fig. 9), reaching for the golden shekels to accompany the purification [page 641] offering. The text of the Franciscan Meditations on the Life of Christ by Pseudo‐Saint Bonaventura states: ‘And now take we heed of how the Child sits upon the altar as if he were just another Child of the common people and then he was bought again as a servant for five pennies called shekels’ (perhaps a reference to Judas’s betrayal).¹³

To the right of Simeon a turbaned woman also holds a candle. In the Christian church the Purification of the Virgin was celebrated on 2 February, a feast also known as Candlemas. The turban worn by the candle‐bearing woman is similar to that worn by the Tiburtine Sibyl on Simeon’s cope (fig. 14). She is probably the widowed prophetess Anna ‘who gave thanks likewise unto the Lord and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem’ (2: 38), although she does not seem particularly aged (Anna was 84). She appears to address the richly dressed man to her left.¹⁴ Third from the right at the back is a man dressed in black, holding a hat and wearing a black coat trimmed at the neck with spotted fur; his features are carefully painted and underdrawn, and he may well be intended as a portrait. On the left in a corresponding position is a figure of a younger [page 642] man painted over the gold background and therefore added after the initial planning stage; he may also be a portrait (for possible identifications see below). The remaining figures, to the left an apparently pregnant woman and a woman in a veil, and to the right another veiled woman and a man in a blue tunic with a belt, seem to have no special significance (figs 15, 16).

The altar cloth is inscribed with Hebrew letters; some of these are accurate renderings of the Hebrew alphabet, but cannot be read as text.¹⁵ At the base of the stone altarpiece is the inscription ‘ANGLĀE’, interpreted by Levey as an abbreviated form of ‘Angularis’ for ‘Lapis Angularis’, a reference to the cornerstone of the Temple which was used as a type or symbol for Christ (as in Ephesians 2: 19–20, ‘Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone’).¹⁶ On the altar is an open book; its text is not intended to be read (fig. 17). The tripartite stone altarpiece shows the story of Cain and Abel, the sacrifice of Isaac (fig. 18), and the drunkenness of Noah. All three Old Testament stories were seen by medieval theologians as prefiguring the sacrifice of Christ, and the sacrifice of Isaac was often included in scenes of the Presentation in the Temple.¹⁷ The altar itself is held up by what appear to be brass figures of naked boys, possibly alluding to pagan idols (fig. 19).

The embroidered dorsal of Simeon’s blue and gold damask cope is positioned in front of the altar, and this juxtaposition must be deliberate (fig. 22): it gives a central position to the scene depicted on the cope, which shows the Tiburtine Sibyl revealing a vision of the Virgin and Child (fig. 20) to the Emperor Augustus, who is shown in a blue robe, wearing a crown. According to this legend a voice said to him: ‘Haec est ara coeli’ (‘This is the heavenly altar’).The composition of the small scene seems to echo that of Rogier van der Weyden’s Bladelin Triptych (Berlin).¹⁸ The orphreys of the cope, which is partly turned back to display a green lining, are embroidered with standing figures: a man with a white beard visible at Simeon’s shoulder holds two tablets and is probably intended to represent Moses (fig. 21), while a partly visible figure holding a scroll adjacent to the scene on the dorsal is evidently a prophet.

The infant Christ is himself held over the altar suggesting the mystery of the Eucharist, the re‐enactment of Christ’s [page 643] sacrifice during the Mass. According to the Lateran Council of 1215, the representation of the Presentation in the Temple was to serve as a reminder of Christ’s death and suffering.¹⁹

The Original Ensemble

The Presentation in the Temple is one of eight panels showing scenes from the Life of the Virgin acquired by the Boisserée brothers in 1812 (see Provenance); the other seven, which remained in the Boisserée collection until they were sold to King Ludwig I of Bavaria (1786–1868) in 1827, are in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich. They include the following: The Meeting at the Golden Gate, The Birth of the Virgin, The Presentation of the Virgin, The Marriage of the Virgin, The Annunciation, The Visitation and The Assumption (figs 23–8 (a, b, c, d, e, f), 30). The group lacks a number of scenes which are often included in cycles of the Life of the Virgin, such as the Nativity, Adoration, Flight into Egypt and Death of the Virgin. The Boisserée brothers acquired the paintings as single panels but believed them originally to have formed part of a winged altarpiece which, when closed, showed on the outer faces of the shutters representations of the Crucifixion and the Coronation of the Virgin and the coats of arms of the Schwartz‐Hirtz family; similar arms are seen in the Visitation panel.²⁰ The Crucifixion and Coronation are each painted across the reverses of two panels, arranged one above the other: the Crucifixion is painted on the reverses of the Meeting and Annunciation, and the Coronation on the reverses of the Marriage and Assumption. The Crucifixion and the Coronation are painted in a style cruder than, but not dissimilar to, that of the Life of the Virgin series (figs 31–4 (a, b, c, d)).

The eight panels are differently constructed. The four panels painted on the reverse are made up of horizontally joined boards, while the remaining three in Munich and NG [page 644] 706 are formed from vertical boards.²¹ The horizontally joined panels are slightly thicker than the vertically joined panels.²² They are all very similar in height but the vertically joined panels are around 5 cm greater in width than those with horizontal joins. Within each of these two groups there are smaller variations that can be accounted for by subsequent trimming; on NG 706, for example, the unpainted edges at the left and right sides have been more or less completely cut off (see Technical Notes). All panels preserve some evidence of original unpainted edges, however, suggesting that originally there were engaged frames or mouldings around each scene.²³ It is no longer possible to be certain whether or not the reverse of NG 706 was once painted. The upper corners of four of the Munich panels are covered by pierced carved framing, evidently original; the other panels probably had similar framing elements, their removal may account for differences in the appearance of the gilded surface observed in the corners of the remaining Munich panels and also evident in NG 706 (see Technical Notes).²⁴

Goldberg and Scheffler did not agree with the assumption of the Boisserée brothers and other later scholars that the panels could be reconstructed as a two‐tiered shuttered altarpiece.²⁵ It had previously been noted that the scenes on the four panels that were assumed to form the inner faces of the proposed shutters had only lost a little if any of their painted surface at the edges; this was not true of the reverses, where parts of the original scenes were clearly missing at the edges indicating the panels had been cut by a significant amount, especially the one forming the lower half of the Crucifixion.²⁶ However, Goldberg and Scheffler later noted that if the panels with horizontal boards were to be reassembled as shutters, the Crucifixion scene – with the trunk of the cross as fixed point of reference to join the upper and lower halves – could not be aligned other than in a manner which leaves more than 3 cm space to the left of the lower panel when looking at the reverse. This would make the two images on the obverse (where little if any of the painted surface has been lost) out of alignment in a manner [page 645]which they considered could not be made up or resolved by the framing elements.²⁷ Goldberg and Scheffler therefore concluded that the Crucifixion and the Coronation had been painted and then sawn in half horizontally before the scenes of the Life of the Virgin were painted on the other side of the panels. In addition, according to Goldberg and Scheffler there is no congruence between the board widths, joins or wood grain to indicate that the other three Munich paintings together with the National Gallery panel could once have formed part of a single quadripartite panel that could have been the central panel of a triptych. They took this to indicate that all the scenes from the series were painted separately.²⁸

Goldberg and Scheffler therefore concluded that all eight panels could not have formed a winged altarpiece or triptych, but may have been intended to function as a series of separate pictures, in the manner of some other cycles in Cologne churches such as those by the Master of the Saint Ursula Legend (pp. 745–8).²⁹ Alternatively, they might have been fixed together in some manner (conceivably with other panels now lost filling in other parts of the cycle);³⁰ but it would have been unusual to have formed a large ensemble out of a number of separate panels. It is also possible that some of the paintings were originally joined together with others now lost, and then sawn apart, so that it is no longer possible to make sense of the original panel construction simply from those that remain. A reference in 1810 to ‘das Bild’ in the church of St Ursula made by Melchior Boisserée, the subsequent owner of the paintings, might conceivably refer to the Life of the Virgin series, and, if so, might imply that the paintings were displayed in a single construction rather than separately. However, a reference to a series of paintings in the church before its secularisation might refer to the same works, suggesting that they were individually displayed at this date (see Provenance).

The Visitation panel bears the same coat of arms found on the Crucifixion and Coronation of the Virgin. This would seem to indicate that commissions for the Crucifixion and Coronation and the Life of the Virgin series were carried out for the same family. The scenes from the reverses would not have been inappropriate for a cycle of the Life of the Virgin, and therefore the two commissions might both have had this same subject.

Donor and Original Location

The Visitation includes a white‐haired male donor (fig. 35). The coats of arms, three damascened silver bands on red and [page 646] the crest of a stag, identify him as a member of the Cologne family of von Hirtz (also Schwartz‐Hirtz).³¹ He wears a distinctive gold chain made up of linked cloud symbols from which hang tau crosses and a pendant of a descending dove with the host in its beak enclosing a Roman or tau cross from which hangs a lion or lioness passant gardant. This pendant may be identified as that of the order of the Holy Ghost (or Dove) founded by John I of Castile in Segovia in 1379.³² The tau crosses (or Antoniterkreuze) attached to chains worn by members of this order in the late fifteenth century may have resulted from connections to the order of St Anthony founded in 1382 by Duke Albrecht of Bavaria.³³

The von Hirtz or Schwartz‐Hirtz family’s arms are found on the keystone of the vaulting of the chapel of the Virgin on the south side of the Cologne church of St Ursula, from which NG 706 and its companions were acquired in the early nineteenth century.³⁴ The chapel was identified by 1326 as a ‘Marienkapelle’ (chapel of the Virgin), but it was altered in the late fifteenth century, when a more substantial addition to the south side of the church was made.³⁵ According to the Koelhoffschen Chronik of 1499 (Johann Koelhoff, Cronica van der hilliger Stat van Coellen), the addition was made in about 1491. Koelhoff states that Everhard von Hirtz, the father of a Johan von Hirtz, built and renewed one of the side chapels of St Ursula including provision of a new altar and windows.³⁶ According to the history of Cologne by Aegidius Gelen or Gelenius, published in 1645, these works were carried out by Johan von Hirtz.³⁷ The confraternity of St Ursula (‘Schiffchen der h. Ursula’) was said to have owned the Marienaltar from 1489.³⁸ In about 1500 Ortuinus Gratius, a chronicler of Cologne, referred to pictures of the Seven Joys of the Virgin on the south side of St Ursula’s church.³⁹ As the subject is not necessarily to be identified with that of the Life of the Virgin, it is not absolutely certain that this refers to the series to which NG 706 belongs. In 1606 a new altarpiece to the Virgin was set up in the chapel, a copy after Raphael of a Virgin and Child with Saint John.⁴⁰

Johan and Everard were frequently used names in the Schwartz‐Hirtz family in the fifteenth century.⁴¹ Goldberg and Scheffler, following Firmenich‐Richartz, concluded that the donor of the paintings was the Johan who was a councillor from 1440 to 1474 and was four times mayor from 1443, the last time in 1467.⁴² He is recorded from 1419 and matriculated in the University of Cologne in 1423.⁴³ His burial took place in 1481 in the chapel of the Virgin at the Carthusian church of St Barbara in Cologne.⁴⁴ In his will of 14 February 1481 he requested that his heirs should set up an altar beside his grave and place on it ‘taffele’ (panels) that he had commissioned during his lifetime.⁴⁵

References to Johan von Hirtz in other sources cannot all refer to the man who died in 1481; there were evidently other men of the same name living after this date, and possibly others of the same name also in Cologne during Johan von Hirtz’s lifetime. A record from 1507 of a donation for the altar of Saint Cordula in St Ursula’s documents the donor as the knight Johan de Cervo, mayor of Cologne from 1443.⁴⁶ A Johan Schwartz‐Hirtz held office as the magistrate of the Cologne hospital of the Holy Ghost from 1445 to 1474; Stella Mary Newton identified him with the donor of the Visitation, and also with the Johan ‘de Cervo’ mentioned with his wife Margaret at Rome in 1485 in an entry in the Liber Fraternitatis of the order of the Holy Ghost. While the magistrate might be identical with the councillor who died in 1481, the man recorded in Rome in 1485 is clearly another of the same name.⁴⁷

The councillor Johan von Hirtz appears to have been the son of Everhard, also a knight, and the brother of another Everhard, whose son Everhard also became a knight and was evidently the last of the line.⁴⁸ As mentioned above, according to the Koelhoffschen Chronik of 1499, Everhard von Hirtz, the father of a Johan von Hirtz, was responsible for the work in the chapel in St Ursula. According to the Cologne historian Gelenius in 1645 the von Hirtz who carried out the works mentioned in the Koelhoffschen Chronik also dedicated a chapel in St Maria im Kapitol in 1493; this too bears the coat of arms seen in the chapel in St Ursula.⁴⁹ Since the Johan von Hirtz who died in 1481 was related to three Everhards, and there were evidently others, including family members, of the name Johan, the names and responsibilities may easily have become confused. Two of the figures in NG 706 may also be portraits of members of the donor’s family: if the donor is indeed the councillor Johan von Hirtz, it seems conceivable that the elderly man in NG 706 might be his brother Everhard and the young man Everhard, his son.

Johan von Hirtz and his family had connections with the churches of St Ursula, St Columba and St Barbara and, if the same man, with the Cologne hospital of the Holy Ghost, adjacent to St Ursula’s church.⁵⁰ He might well have commissioned paintings for all four. However, unless the paintings had subsequently been moved, the early nineteenth‐century references to the Life of the Virgin series and St Ursula’s make it probable that they were commissioned for the family chapel at St Ursula’s, which was perhaps still undergoing renovations by the family after Johan von Hirtz’s death in 1481.

Attribution and Date

NG 706 together with the panels in Munich make up the core group of paintings after which the Master of the Life of the Virgin is named. Art historians have disagreed about the extent to which other painters were responsible for some works in the wider group.⁵¹ Smith and Goldberg and Scheffler have plausibly suggested that any differences between the paintings emerge from a large workshop involving a number of assistants.⁵² The Life of the Virgin paintings are all of extremely high quality and NG 706 and the Munich paintings do not exhibit clearly identifiable distinctions in style and quality. NG 706 should therefore continue to be considered the work of the Master of the Life of the Virgin, along with the panels in Munich.

Dendrochronological analysis undertaken in 1978 on the Munich panels has found that the most recently formed ring (from the second board of the Annunciation) dates from 1459.⁵³ This suggests an earliest possible felling date of 1468 with an earliest creation date of 1470, or, more probably, allowing for 15 sapwood rings and ten years storage time, a date of 1484 or later. However, Scherer has shown that the Sinzig Altarpiece, dated 1480 (St Peter’s church, Sinzig am Rhein) takes elements from the Life of the Virgin series as a model, giving a terminus ante quem.⁵⁴ It is reasonable to suppose that that NG 706 dates from about 1475–80, towards the end of councillor Johan von Hirtz’s lifetime.

Select Bibliography

Waagen 1854, pp. 16–17, no. 23; Waagen 1857a, p. 224; Aldenhoven 1902, p. 411, note 350; Förster 1926–7; Shorr 1946, pp. 17–32; Thieme‐Becker , vol. 37, 1950, p. 219; Stange 1934–61, vol. 5 (1952), pp. 25–9; Stange 1967, vol. 1, pp. 61–2, no. 167; Levey 1959, pp. 85–7; Goldberg in Goldberg and Salm 1963, pp. 133–7; Goldberg and Scheffler 1972, pp. 308–33; Smith in Zehnder, Smith and Legner 1977, p. 48; Newton 1976; Schmidt 1978, pp. 177–9, 183– 4; Smith 1985, p. 74; Budde 1986, pp. 99–101; Dunkerton 1991, pp. 308–10; Scherer in Kammel and Gries 2000, pp. 123–5.

Notes