.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
A rare and imposing survival from the orbit of Dürer’s Nuremberg, this commanding Resurrection stands among the most compelling works attributed to the anonymous painter now known as the Master of the Oberstenfeld Altarpiece. Long subsumed within the oeuvre of Hans Schäufelein, the panel is today recognised as the work of a distinct and highly individual artistic personality, one who absorbed the graphic language of Dürer and Schäufelein, yet transformed it into a manner of striking luminosity, dramatic tension and almost visionary expressivity.
The artistic identity of this painter was only definitively isolated by Christof Metzger in his 2002 catalogue raisonné of Schäufelein’s paintings (op. cit.). There, Metzger grouped the present panel with three companion scenes from a dismembered Passion altarpiece – an Ecce Homo, a Carrying of the Cross (Hamburg, private collection) and a Crucifixion (Berlin, Paul Cassirer) – each independently placed in Schäufelein’s orbit by successive scholars, from Friedrich Winkler to Max J. Friedländer, yet all bearing the hallmarks of a single, distinctive hand. The anonymous master takes his name from the winged altarpiece of 1512 in the Stiftskirche at Oberstenfeld, donated by Stephan and Adelheid Schreiber to the Kartause Güterstein near Urach, whose Passion scenes drew extensively on Schäufelein’s woodcut designs (Metzger, op. cit., p. 514). Metzger proposed that the artist was trained in Swabian or Franconian circles in close proximity to Schäufelein and, by extension, to the workshop of Albrecht Dürer himself, where Schäufelein was active from circa 1503 to 1507 (ibid., p. 513). Max Schefold had earlier suggested that the two artists worked together in Dürer’s Nuremberg workshop before pursuing independent paths (‘Der Oberstenfelder Flügelaltar’, Pantheon, XXII, 1938, pp. 348–53). The master appears to have carried this graphic inheritance into a peripatetic career that took him to South Tyrol by 1514, where Metzger attributes to him the painted wings of the altar of San Mauro di Pinè, before his return to southern Germany by 1516, the date of a Nailing to the Cross monogrammed K.S. in Bad Wimpfen (op. cit., pp. 511-14).
The composition derives its essential design from Dürer’s woodcut of The Resurrection from The Small Passion of circa 1510 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art; fig. 1), yet far from transcribing it, the artist reimagined the source with considerable creative independence. Infrared reflectography reveals a highly detailed freehand underdrawing, executed in a liquid carbon-based medium, most likely an ink applied with a pointed brush, in which significant departures from Dürer’s design were planned from the outset (fig. 2; Tager Stonor Richardson, April 2026, available upon request). Christ’s head is turned further to the right and his gaze lowered; a soldier’s bare feet replace Dürer’s sandals; a crossbow is substituted for a sword; a fantasy castle rises on the horizon at left; and the tree stumps at upper right appear reminiscent of Schäufelein’s own earlier treatment of the subject in his illustration to Ulrich Pinder’s Speculum Passionis (Nuremberg, 1507). Other motifs, present in the underdrawing but suppressed during the painting stage – a sunburst halo, a bare forked tree, metal gauntlets later replaced with leather gloves – attest to a fluid creative process, while elements absent from the underdrawing altogether, such as the seals on the tomb, appear to have been inspired by Dürer’s larger print of the subject from The Large Passion (1510), confirming the artist’s familiarity with multiple Nuremberg prototypes. The underdrawing models the figures with dense parallel hatching, mimicking the precision and complexity of a woodcut while departing freely from its sources: the work of a highly skilled draughtsman whose approach bears close similarities to that of painters in Dürer’s immediate circle, including Albrecht Altdorfer and Hans Baldung Grien.
The same independence governs the painting itself. Its crystalline light, elongated figures, fantastical armour and storm-dark sky mark a temperament quite apart from Schäufelein’s, even as they acknowledge his example. Everywhere the paint betrays the instincts of a printmaker: Christ’s hair and beard are rendered in fine, calligraphic strokes of almost engraver-like precision, the looping curls built up with the same linear confidence that governs the dense hatching of the underdrawing beneath. The sleeping and startled guards become more than witnesses; their angular, agitated forms heighten the solemn stillness of Christ, who rises from the tomb with an authority at once monumental and strangely ethereal. In this tension between earthly tumult and divine calm lies the panel’s particular force. Rare, imposing and unusually well preserved, the present Resurrection is not only among the most complete works attributable to the Master of the Oberstenfeld Altarpiece, but a vivid expression of the experimental energy that animated South German painting in the second decade of the sixteenth century.
The artistic identity of this painter was only definitively isolated by Christof Metzger in his 2002 catalogue raisonné of Schäufelein’s paintings (op. cit.). There, Metzger grouped the present panel with three companion scenes from a dismembered Passion altarpiece – an Ecce Homo, a Carrying of the Cross (Hamburg, private collection) and a Crucifixion (Berlin, Paul Cassirer) – each independently placed in Schäufelein’s orbit by successive scholars, from Friedrich Winkler to Max J. Friedländer, yet all bearing the hallmarks of a single, distinctive hand. The anonymous master takes his name from the winged altarpiece of 1512 in the Stiftskirche at Oberstenfeld, donated by Stephan and Adelheid Schreiber to the Kartause Güterstein near Urach, whose Passion scenes drew extensively on Schäufelein’s woodcut designs (Metzger, op. cit., p. 514). Metzger proposed that the artist was trained in Swabian or Franconian circles in close proximity to Schäufelein and, by extension, to the workshop of Albrecht Dürer himself, where Schäufelein was active from circa 1503 to 1507 (ibid., p. 513). Max Schefold had earlier suggested that the two artists worked together in Dürer’s Nuremberg workshop before pursuing independent paths (‘Der Oberstenfelder Flügelaltar’, Pantheon, XXII, 1938, pp. 348–53). The master appears to have carried this graphic inheritance into a peripatetic career that took him to South Tyrol by 1514, where Metzger attributes to him the painted wings of the altar of San Mauro di Pinè, before his return to southern Germany by 1516, the date of a Nailing to the Cross monogrammed K.S. in Bad Wimpfen (op. cit., pp. 511-14).
The composition derives its essential design from Dürer’s woodcut of The Resurrection from The Small Passion of circa 1510 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art; fig. 1), yet far from transcribing it, the artist reimagined the source with considerable creative independence. Infrared reflectography reveals a highly detailed freehand underdrawing, executed in a liquid carbon-based medium, most likely an ink applied with a pointed brush, in which significant departures from Dürer’s design were planned from the outset (fig. 2; Tager Stonor Richardson, April 2026, available upon request). Christ’s head is turned further to the right and his gaze lowered; a soldier’s bare feet replace Dürer’s sandals; a crossbow is substituted for a sword; a fantasy castle rises on the horizon at left; and the tree stumps at upper right appear reminiscent of Schäufelein’s own earlier treatment of the subject in his illustration to Ulrich Pinder’s Speculum Passionis (Nuremberg, 1507). Other motifs, present in the underdrawing but suppressed during the painting stage – a sunburst halo, a bare forked tree, metal gauntlets later replaced with leather gloves – attest to a fluid creative process, while elements absent from the underdrawing altogether, such as the seals on the tomb, appear to have been inspired by Dürer’s larger print of the subject from The Large Passion (1510), confirming the artist’s familiarity with multiple Nuremberg prototypes. The underdrawing models the figures with dense parallel hatching, mimicking the precision and complexity of a woodcut while departing freely from its sources: the work of a highly skilled draughtsman whose approach bears close similarities to that of painters in Dürer’s immediate circle, including Albrecht Altdorfer and Hans Baldung Grien.
The same independence governs the painting itself. Its crystalline light, elongated figures, fantastical armour and storm-dark sky mark a temperament quite apart from Schäufelein’s, even as they acknowledge his example. Everywhere the paint betrays the instincts of a printmaker: Christ’s hair and beard are rendered in fine, calligraphic strokes of almost engraver-like precision, the looping curls built up with the same linear confidence that governs the dense hatching of the underdrawing beneath. The sleeping and startled guards become more than witnesses; their angular, agitated forms heighten the solemn stillness of Christ, who rises from the tomb with an authority at once monumental and strangely ethereal. In this tension between earthly tumult and divine calm lies the panel’s particular force. Rare, imposing and unusually well preserved, the present Resurrection is not only among the most complete works attributable to the Master of the Oberstenfeld Altarpiece, but a vivid expression of the experimental energy that animated South German painting in the second decade of the sixteenth century.