The Calvary

Entry

This monumental painting contains seven scenes from the Passion spread over four levels. In the foreground are the soldiers dicing for Christ’s cloak (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:23; Luke 23:24; John 19:23-24), the mocking of Christ (Matthew 26:67; Mark 14: 65; Luke 22:63) and the flagellation (Matthew 27:26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:16; John 19:1). On the next level up there is a group of soldiers with the two thieves sentenced to be crucified with Christ (Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32-33; John 19:18). In the centre is the swooning Virgin, who is being supported by John and one of her sisters. On the third level, Christ and one of the thieves are hanging on their crosses, while the third one is being hoisted into position (Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33; John 19:18). In the distant background is the carrying of the cross, just outside the gate to Jerusalem (Luke 23:26-31; John 19:17).

The placement of the scenes takes no account of the chronological order of the events as described in the gospels. As Van Os has written, the entire painting was probably designed to allow the viewer to experience the events on Mount Calvary for himself or herself (compassio), thereby following in Christ’s footsteps (imitatio Christi). Some of the events depicted are not mentioned in the Bible, such as the Virgin swooning, boring holes in the cross, the pole with a sponge drenched in sour wine which the high priest Annas is handing to a man, and Pilate mounted on a horse holding a rolled-up piece of paper on which he had written the letters ‘INRI’, which was later attached to the cross. Such additions to the story of the Crucifixion are also found in contemporary devotional writings, particularly those devoted to the Passion.⁹

The scene is based on a grisaille drawing of 1505 by Albrecht Dürer which has been in Florence since 1608 (fig. a),¹⁰ of which there are many copies and versions.¹¹ The painting enlarges the drawing almost threefold, and translates it into colour.

The underdrawing in what appears to be a dry medium was probably made in two stages. Faint lines were first drawn to establish the positions of the various passages, and in the second stage they were gone over more heavily and a few adjustments were made. One example of this is the left back leg of the reclining dog in the foreground, which is lower down in the underdrawing (fig. b). The artist departed from the drawing here and there during the painting stage. Tall blades of grass by the dog were omitted, and the pointed clubs and pickaxes of the soldiers in the middleground were replaced by spears (fig. c), the initially faulty perspective of the ladder on the shoulders of one of the executioners was corrected, and the dog sitting to the right of the cross was moved and given a different pose. A comparison of the underdrawing (fig. d) with Dürer’s design, which is itself difficult to read, although the details can be seen in drawn and engraved copies, shows that the underdrawing follows it closely. The changes made in the paint layer are thus departures from the model. This points to the existence of a model with exactly the same scene and proportions as Dürer’s drawing, so evidently that drawing, or a very accurate copy of it, was in the workshop where this panel was made.¹²

The differences in quality between the various levels suggest that several hands contributed to this panel. It is possible that the work was divided, with the middleground being executed by a second, less capable painter than the one responsible for the background and foreground.¹³ One suspects that the latter artist painted the contemporary copy after the Rijksmuseum panel, which is the same size and is now in Geneva.¹⁴ There are at least three copies, probably of a later date, which follow this Calvary very precisely, and thus depart from Dürer’s drawing in the same way.¹⁵ In other words, the Amsterdam version, which enlarges and alters Dürer’s drawing, was the model for the known copies.

The Rijksmuseum panel displays characteristics that are typical of the late style of Cornelis Engebrechtsz and his workshop from the period 1520-30, such as the bright colours of the figures’ costumes and the loose way in which the background is painted with blue and green. Not very much is known about Engebrechtsz’s workshop, or about the apprentices he trained. As mentioned in the biography, it is likely that work by Engebrechtsz’s pupils can be found in a large number of paintings and drawings that Friedländer, Winkler and Wescher attributed to Jan de Cock, who was active in Antwerp and may have been born in Leiden. It was only Friedländer, in 1933, who was doubtful about whether to give this Calvary to Jan de Cock or Jan de Beer. Hoogewerff and Beets assigned it to Engebrechtsz’s workshop, specifically to his sons. However, it is only in some of the background figures that the painting is connected to that group of works, all of which are fairly small.

Given the differences in quality within the scene, it is likely that it is the work of several hands, probably in Engebrechtsz’s workshop. This monumental panel is thus another argument for placing the paintings that are attributed here to Pseudo Jan Wellens de Cock in the immediate vicinity of Cornelis Engebrechtsz and his Leiden workshop.

It is not inconceivable that this Calvary is identical with the painting described by Van Mander as Christ Carrying the Cross by Engebrechtsz’s son Cornelis Cornelisz named Kunst, ‘with the two murderers being led away, depicted with great expressiveness, and likewise Mary’s emotion at the suffering of her son, our Lord Jesus Christ’.¹⁶ Although there is no firm evidence for this identification, Van Mander does single out the two thieves and the Virgin's sorrow, which are depicted in the middleground of this painting. A swooning Virgin was rarely depicted in combination with a carrying of the cross in early Netherlandish painting.
MB/JPFK