For the paintings of Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen (c. 1500–1559), there is no modern, definitive catalogue raisonné. Yet the international art market does operate within a recognisable framework: Friedländer, Horn, expert opinions and new technical analysis. Recent auctions demonstrate why, particularly in Vermeyen’s case, a reference in the literature can never be considered separately from the question of how a painting is viewed and attributed today.

When Lempertz offered a small Virgin and Child by Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen in May 2022, it lacked precisely the piece of information that is often sought first when dealing with Old Masters: an established catalogue raisonné entry.

According to the auction house, it was a newly discovered painting. It was dated to c. 1540–45. Infrared reflectography also revealed changes made during the painting process. The estimate was €70,000–90,000; the panel sold for €75,000 including buyer’s premium.[1]

What is interesting about this painting is not simply that no old number could be attached to it. More significant is the fact that Vermeyen’s painted oeuvre is not governed by a single modern, definitive catalogue raisonné. Anyone researching a painting by Vermeyen has to work with several layers simultaneously: Max J. Friedländer’s early cataloguing, Hendrik J. Horn’s two-volume standard work of 1989, as well as more recent art-historical research and technical analysis.

Friedländer provides the older numbered corpus of paintings. Horn is the modern standard work. But neither functions as an up-to-date, institutionally maintained catalogue raisonné in which every new discovery or reattribution is incorporated.

Horn: the book you need to know

The most important modern reference work is Hendrik J. Horn’s Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, Painter of Charles V and His Conquest of Tunis: Paintings, Etchings, Drawings, Cartoons & Tapestries. The publication appeared in two volumes in 1989.[2] For anyone working with Vermeyen, Horn is indispensable.

It covers not only paintings, but also etchings, drawings, cartoons and tapestries. This allowed Horn to establish connections between different parts of an exceptionally diverse oeuvre: court portraits, preparatory drawings, Charles V’s Tunis campaign and the monumental tapestry cycles that resulted from it.

It is not simply “the catalogue raisonné of Vermeyen”. Horn’s monograph is the fundamental modern standard work, but the paintings were not presented as a catalogue raisonné.[3]

Friedländer: the older numbered corpus

In volume XII of his monumental Die altniederländische Malerei, Pieter Coeck, Jan van Scorel, published in 1935, Friedländer also assembled a corpus of paintings by Vermeyen.[4]

Here we find something that should not automatically be expected from Horn: a clearly numbered corpus of paintings. The main Vermeyen sequence runs from numbers 388–400, followed by a supplement numbered 401–417 and an addendum numbered 418.[5] Friedländer thus provides a historical overview of the oeuvre.

Since 1935, paintings unknown to Friedländer have surfaced, attributions have changed and technical methods of investigation have become available that have fundamentally expanded the way Old Master paintings can be assessed. A Friedländer number therefore documents an important art-historical position. It is not a modern certificate of authenticity.

Ferdinand I: Horn and the auction house speak the same language

The portrait of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor clearly illustrates how such references function in practice. Christie’s London offered the work on 8 December 2017 as Workshop of Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen. The oak panel measures 49.5 by 35.5 centimetres.

The history of the literature supports precisely this degree of caution. In the 1975 edition, Friedländer had treated the painting as possibly by Vermeyen. Horn subsequently catalogued it as A15, “Shop of Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, circa 1530”.[6]

The market nevertheless responded strongly. Against an estimate of £40,000–60,000, the painting realised £236,750, approximately €270,000.[7] The result is interesting because it demonstrates that a workshop attribution does not automatically make a painting commercially marginal.

The identity of the sitter—Ferdinand I, brother of Charles V and one of the central Habsburg figures of the sixteenth century—the quality of the portrait, the early date of the composition and its relationship to Vermeyen’s court production can all carry considerable weight in the market. Its status in the catalogue and literature provides an important framework.

Vermeyen in Horn, “attributed to” at Sotheby’s

Another painting demonstrates how a later auction house may depart from Horn. In October 2008, Sotheby’s London offered a portrait of a bearded man resting his hand on a skull. The attribution read: Attributed to Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen. Estimate: £10,000–15,000.

The literature, however, was considerably more emphatic than the heading of the lot suggested. Max J. Friedländer had previously published the painting as Vermeyen. At an earlier sale, reference was also made to a confirmation by Friedländer dating from 1941. Horn reproduced the work in 1989 in volume II, p. 494, likewise as Vermeyen.[8] Yet in 2008 Sotheby’s opted for attributed to. This is precisely why a reference in the literature cannot simply be treated as a tick in a box.

Friedländer, the RKD and Horn, and still no full attribution

We see the same pattern at Hampel in Munich in 2021. A large Holy Family, measuring 96 by 78 centimetres, was offered there. The work was not catalogued as fully autograph Vermeyen, but as: attributed to Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen. The estimate was €30,000–60,000.[9] The documentation was by no means insubstantial.

According to Hampel, the painting was accompanied by a copy of a handwritten confirmation by Max J. Friedländer from 1950. The work was registered and illustrated at the RKD. Horn was cited in the literature. Nevertheless, the attribution remained cautious.

When the painting is younger than the standard work

The Virgin and Child sold by Lempertz in 2022 represents the opposite problem.

The painting could not have appeared as a known entry in Horn if it was not known at the time of his research. Its attribution therefore had to be supported in other ways. Lempertz referred to an expert opinion, stylistic comparison and technical examination. Infrared reflectography revealed small changes made to the composition during the painting process.[1]

That does not, however, bring the discussion to an end. In a scholarly KIK-IRPA publication from 2025, the same painting is described as “Attributed to Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen”.[10] With an artist for whom there is no current central catalogue raisonné, such differences can continue to exist side by side.

A portrait of George Schenck and a striking market development

On 10 December 2019, Vanderkindere in Brussels offered a remarkable portrait of George Schenck van Toutenburg, Stadtholder of Overijssel and later also Governor of Friesland.

The painting, oil on a cradled oak panel, measures 87 by 67.5 centimetres. The attribution was cautious: Attribué à Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen. According to the auction catalogue, the work had been examined by the Rijksmuseum in 1974. It had also been included in an exhibition in Bruges in 1962 and in Art before the Iconoclasm at the Rijksmuseum in 1986.[11]

The estimate was €50,000–60,000. The result was €520,000.[12] In 2022, Domaine de Peyrassol organised the exhibition Face au temps, which included this work from the collection of an Old Master dealer.[13]

The most expensive “Vermeyen” portrait that subsequently became a Van Scorel

The most striking warning against an overly rigid reading of an oeuvre is the Portrait of Joost Aemszoon van der Burch.

Christie’s New York offered the monumental portrait on 14 April 2016 as Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen. The estimate was $1–2 million. The painting realised $2,741,000 including buyer’s premium, approximately €2.4 million.[14] Christie’s subsequently presented the result as an auction record for Vermeyen.

But the attribution was already under discussion before the sale.

In the saleroom notice, Christie’s stated that Matthias Ubl and Molly Faries attributed the painting to Jan van Scorel.[15] A year later they published their arguments in detail in The Rijksmuseum Bulletin. Their conclusion placed the painting within Van Scorel’s oeuvre.[16] A distinguished provenance, an exceptional price and an established artist’s name in an auction catalogue do not bring art-historical debate to an end.

The Louvre: one painting, two completely different names

The Louvre also owns a Vermeyen whose recent history demonstrates just how quickly an attribution can change.

Saint Jérôme méditant, now inventory number RF 2003 8, was auctioned in Paris on 14 December 2002 as: Flemish School, circa 1560, follower of Pieter Coecke van Aelst. It subsequently appeared at TEFAF Maastricht in 2003, where it was presented as Vermeyen. In September of that same year, the Louvre acquired the painting.[17]

Anyone looking only at the current museum cataloguing will miss that dynamic. Yet for connoisseurship and provenance research, the earlier attribution is essential. Vermeyen’s oeuvre does not simply expand as previously unknown paintings are recognised. At the same time, it can contract or be reorganised as works are reattributed.

An oeuvre that is still evolving

Museum research also demonstrates that Vermeyen’s painted oeuvre was not frozen in 1989.

In 2014, Ainsworth and Vandivere published a Judith with the Head of Holofernes that had long been associated with Jean Bellegambe. By re-examining the monogram and combining stylistic and technical research, they presented the painting as an early Vermeyen, dating to c. 1525–30.[3]

Their research is at least as significant as the discovery itself. It demonstrates how the methodology has changed. Friedländer and Horn constructed their corpora primarily through art-historical documentation, comparison, photography, provenance and connoisseurship. Today these methods are supplemented by dendrochronology, infrared reflectography, materials analysis, macrophotography and digital image comparison.

What makes Horn particularly valuable

Horn demonstrated how Vermeyen’s paintings relate to drawings, prints, cartoons, court commissions and the extensive material associated with Charles V’s Tunis campaign. To understand a painting by Vermeyen, however, the real expertise lies in reading all these publications as successive layers of scholarship.

When was the work first recognised as Vermeyen? What comparisons were available at the time? Has the dating changed? How was it subsequently positioned within the oeuvre? And has technical or art-historical research since emerged that further nuances its position?

With Vermeyen, “Is the work in Horn?” is a good first question. What matters next is everything that happened after publication. What has happened to the painting since 1989? Has it been re-examined? Has a museum accepted it? Has an earlier attribution been downgraded? Is technical research now available?

Why the absence of a catalogue raisonné makes Vermeyen particularly interesting

Researching Vermeyen requires more work. Friedländer provides an early numbered core. Horn is the indispensable modern standard work, but not a formal catalogue raisonné of the paintings. What follows are decades of new discoveries, technical examinations, museum reassessments, expert opinions and changing attributions.

An oeuvre consists not only of paintings that were once assigned a number. It also consists of changing observations about those paintings. In Vermeyen’s case, that process is still very much alive.

Do you have a particular interest in this artist or in this subject?

Do you follow this artist, or have you come across a work you would like to know more about? We regularly research works appearing on the market and are always happy to exchange views on quality, provenance, art-historical context and previous auction results. You can contact us directly via info@antonello.art.

Notes and Sources

[1] Lempertz, Old Masters, Cologne, 21 May 2022, lot 2008, Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen, The Virgin and Child, oil on panel, 45.7 × 34.7 cm; estimate €70,000–90,000; realised €75,000 including buyer’s premium.

[2] Hendrik J. Horn, Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, Painter of Charles V and His Conquest of Tunis: Paintings, Etchings, Drawings, Cartoons & Tapestries, 2 vols., Doornspijk: Davaco, 1989, Aetas Aurea VIII.

[3] Maryan Ainsworth and Abbie Vandivere, “Judith with the Head of Holofernes: Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen’s Earliest Signed Painting”, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 6, no. 2, 2014.

[4] Max J. Friedländer, Die altniederländische Malerei, XII: Pieter Coeck, Jan van Scorel, Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff, 1935.

[5] Friedländer, Early Netherlandish Painting, XII, “Catalogue L: The paintings of Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen”, nos. 388–400; supplement nos. 401–417; addendum no. 418.

[6] Christie’s, Old Masters including Old Master & British Drawings and Watercolours, London, 8 December 2017, lot 106, Portrait of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, Workshop of Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen; literature: Horn 1989, II, p. 489, no. A15, “Shop of Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, circa 1530”.

[7] Christie’s, London, 8 December 2017, lot 106; estimate £40,000–60,000; realised £236,750 including buyer’s premium.

[8] Sotheby’s, Old Master and Early British Paintings, London, 30 October 2008, lot 5, Portrait of a bearded gentleman…, Attributed to Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen; estimate £10,000–15,000; literature including Horn 1989, II, p. 494, no. A115.

[9] Hampel Fine Art Auctions, Old Master Paintings – Part II, Munich, 24 June 2021, lot 431, The Holy Family, attributed to Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen; oil on panel, 96 × 78 cm; estimate €30,000–60,000.

[10] “Rediscovered and Reconsidered: Jan Gossart’s Virgin and Child with a Book”, Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage / Bulletin de l’Institut royal du Patrimoine artistique 41, 2025. The painting sold by Lempertz in 2022 is described there as “Attributed to Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen”.

[11] Vanderkindere, Brussels, 10 December 2019, lot 105, Portrait de George Schenck van Toutenburg, stadhouder d’Overijssel, attributed to Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen, oil on cradled oak panel, 87 × 67.5 cm.

[12] The Auction Augur, “The case of the Great Bustard”, December 2019. The source reports €520,000 for Vanderkindere lot 105.

[13] Bernard Marcelis, “En Provence, le Domaine de Peyrassol ‘Face au temps’”, The Art Newspaper France, 15 September 2022.

[14] Christie’s, Old Master Paintings: Part I, New York, 14 April 2016, lot 113, Portrait of Joost Aemszoon van der Burch, offered as Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen; estimate $1,000,000–2,000,000; realised $2,741,000 including buyer’s premium.

[15] Christie’s, saleroom notice for lot 113, 14 April 2016; noting the alternative attribution to Jan van Scorel by Matthias Ubl and Molly Faries.

[16] Molly Faries and Matthias Ubl, “A New Attribution to Jan van Scorel: The Portrait of Joost Aemsz van der Burch and the Artist’s Portrayals of ‘Great Lords of the Netherlands’”, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 65, no. 4, 2017, pp. 354–371.

[17] Musée du Louvre, Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen, Saint Jérôme méditant, inv. RF 2003 8; provenance from its sale in Paris in December 2002 to its acquisition by the Louvre in 2003.