Crucifix

Entry

This walnut crucifix was among the oldest holdings of the former convent of Bethlehem (Sisters Penitent) in the Northern Brabant village of Haaren.¹ It is not known when or how it ended up in this convent. On stylistic grounds the crucifix is roughly dated to between 1470 and 1490,² which would mean that it was not made specially for either the convent – founded in 1501 and put into use in 1506 – or the accompanying chapel of 1520. It is possible that the founders of the convent, the sisters Maria and Eringardis Talhout, took the crucifix along from the Groot Begijnhof (large beguinage) in Den Bosch, where they had been staying before that time. Another possibility is that it was acquired later by another owner, perhaps during or after the reconstruction (in 1642-44) of the convent, which had been completely destroyed during the Eighty Years’ War.

In 1965, the year in which the Sisters Penitent left the convent in Haaren to move into new accommodation in Wassenaar, the crucifix was acquired by the Maastricht restorer W.J. Mares for an unknown sum of money. The museum purchased it from him two years later, on the assumption that it would be an addition to the oeuvre of the so-called Master of Koudewater (active c. 1460-80).³ Mares had attributed it to this anonymous woodcarver on the basis of what he considered a close resemblance to his work and because the same Sisters Penitent were also in the possession of another Virgin and Child (now in the Museum Krona, Uden), which was also attributed to this master.⁴

Although it is generally agreed that the crucifix originated in the northern part of the Duchy of Brabant, the differences of style were considered too great to warrant an attribution to the Master of Koudewater.⁵ For example, Christ’s facial type is characterized by distinctly almond-shaped eyes, sunken cheeks and a narrow chin, features that occur in other Northern Brabant woodcarvings,⁶ but do not correspond to the full, oval heads with round eyes by the Master of Koudewater (cf., for example, BK-NM-1197). Moreover, the stylized way in which Christ's beard is sketchily rendered by means of regular Tremolierung (wiggle-work) is not seen anywhere else in the repertoire of this master.

The cross on which Christ hangs is contemporaneous with the statue and in all likelihood originally belonged to it. The points of the cross end in quatrefoils, on which the symbols of the Evangelists are painted: (clockwise) eagle (John), man (Matthew), ox (Luke) and lion (Mark). The same images were painted on the reverse of the quatrefoils, but they are largely obscured by worn, grey overpainting. This, together with the presumably original iron bracket at the top, is a strong indication that the crucifix originally hung freely from the ceiling, so that the paintings on both sides were visible.

There exists an almost identical crucifix which, remarkably enough, was also among the old belongings of the convent in Haaren (fig. a). A photograph taken around 1930 shows that it was then hanging on a wall in the refectory.⁷ It now belongs to the collection of the Museum Krona in Uden (to which the present crucifix has been given on long-term loan).⁸ The painting on both the corpus and the front of the accompanying cross was removed at some point. The polychromy is still present on the reverse. As is the case with the present crucifix, the symbols of the Evangelists were applied to the quatrefoils (fig. b).

On the basis of a close stylistic comparison of the two crucifixes, it has recently been established that the version that was stripped on the front is most likely a replica of the Amsterdam crucifix.⁹ Although one might be inclined to suspect a nineteenth-century copy, it seems in this case to be a rare, late-sixteenth or seventeenth-century copy of a medieval sculpture. This can be gleaned from certain details, in which subtle Baroque influences can be detected. For instance, Christ has a more exalted facial expression, as seen in his more widely opened mouth and slightly more upraised head, as though there is still some life in him. Moreover, the folds on his loincloth are somewhat rounder and the style of the Titulus Crucis (INRI board) – which is flat in the medieval example but in this later specimen bulges in the middle and ends in scrollwork on either side – is completely in accordance with contemporary Baroque taste.

The reason for making the copy can no longer be determined. The suggestion previously put forward by Van Liebergen – namely that the two corpora, of exactly the same dimensions, come from the same late-medieval workshop and originally belonged together, forming one double crucifix – can readily be rejected.¹⁰ In fact, there is nothing to indicate that these figures of Christ ever shared a cross. Neither cross, both of which seem to be contemporaneous with the corpora, bears traces of attachment on the reverse. The theory that they were attached to each other, cross and all, can also be rejected, given that the crosses differ in length, thickness and type of wood and the fact that both bear contemporary paintings on the reverse. The crucifixes must have been separate from the beginning, with one hanging in the refectory, for example, and the other in the convent's chapel.

Bieke van der Mark, 2024