Christ Bearing the Cross

The Painting: One of the most dramatic episodes of the Passion of Christ relates how Jesus struggled beneath the heavy burden of the cross as he made his way along the route to Golgotha, the “place of the skull” and the site of his eventual crucifixion. The New Testament Gospels of Matthew (27:31–33), Mark (15:26–32), and Luke (23:26–32) describe the event, Luke providing the most detailed account. All three mention that a bystander from the vicinity, Simon of Cyrene, was engaged to assist Christ with the heavy burden of the cross (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21–22, Luke 23:26). Simon is the man dressed in green with red leggings seen lifting the cross at its center. The biblical narratives were augmented by other textual sources that embellished the story, elaborating on the protagonists present and the emotional tenor of the event. Among these are the Pseudo-Bonaventure’s Meditations on the Life of Christ (Meditationes Vitae Christi) of around 1300 and the Life of Christ (Vita Christi) completed in 1374 by Ludolf of Saxony.[1] The former mentions a key episode shown in the foreground of The Met’s painting when Christ paused upon his arduous route and a woman named Veronica (derived from the Latin Vera Icon, meaning True Image) wiped the blood and sweat from his face, thus creating a miraculous image of Christ’s countenance on her cloth. Both Pseudo-Bonaventure and Ludolf of Saxony relate in dramatic detail how distraught the Virgin Mary, John the Evangelist and three other Marys were when they encountered Christ stumbling beneath the cross.[2] They can be seen pausing half-way up the steep path at the center of the painting, weeping uncontrollably. The Met’s painting departs from most depictions of the theme by showing the two thieves to be crucified with Christ not walking together but separated as they are coerced by the guards along the path at the left. The upper left corner of the painting shows preparations for the crucifixions of the three men, as the crosses are raised and secured in the ground.

Among those wending their way to Golgotha are Jewish men, identified by their pointed hats and red and yellow attire. New Testament texts (Matthew 27:16, Mark 15:7, Luke 23:19, John 18:40) identify the Jews as responsible for condemning Christ to the cross. When asked by Pontius Pilate whether the prisoner Barabbas or Christ should be pardoned, they chose Barabbas. Notable as well is the group emerging from the city gate at the right that includes a cuirassed centurion on horseback in a gold pointed hat and carrying a gold reliquary on a staff; a man dressed in a red fur-lined gown and fur-trimmed hat, attended by two pageboys; and various other well-appointed citizens following on horseback behind them.

The costumes of several of the figures are decorated with partially readable texts on the borders of their garments. Pierre Sosson first attempted a transcription of the phrases on the costume of the man in red whose back is turned to us at the far left, reading: EL BEEF GHELOVTE E. P. OMAGAME SALIAT EEN SC. DAET SAT DI BLOET M... (Urbach 1991, fig. 1). The words omagame (procession) and bloet (blood)—clearly visible along the right edge of the right sleeve, and at the shoulder of the left sleeve—suggested to Urbach (1991) and Ainsworth (1998) the cult of the Holy Blood in Bruges, and the yearly procession held since 1281 in which the city’s most important relic, that of Christ’s blood, is featured. Popular legend claimed that the vial of blood was brought to Bruges after the Second Crusade of CE 1147–49, by Thierry, Count of Flanders, who returned from Jerusalem with the relic presented to him by his brother-in-law Baldwin III of Jerusalem, as a reward for his bravery. The Confraternity of the Holy Blood was founded in 1405 and comprised a group of twenty-six elite male members of society, expanded in 1471 to thirty-one (Trowbridge 2009). The cuirassed centurion on the white horse at the lower right brandishes a staff surmounted by a gilded container topped with a pelican pricking its breast to feed its young—symbolic of Christ who suffered and died for humankind. Might this have been one of the processional reliquaries created to house the Holy Blood? Mark Trowbridge’s extensive research concerning the Confraternity of the Holy Blood has discovered archival documents confirming that the group owned “a staff with a pelican” and referring to “ons roedragher”—a staff bearer, who was a clerk of the confraternity. This man carried the staff during masses and probably for the Holy Blood procession (Trowbridge 2009, p. 5). According to Don La Rocca (Curator Emeritus of The Met’s Arms and Armor Department), the man’s armor is not based on existing models, but rather is intended to evoke something from foreign lands of an earlier time (La Rocca 2022). The inscription on the armor can be partially transcribed: [II] V I D [or n] A G A S P [r or I’] D E II [or N] C [or E] L (Trowbridge 2009, p. 5; fig. 2). However, it cannot be easily deciphered as either Latin or Flemish, and any hope of identifying the name “Gasp[a]r Den Cel” with Confraternity members of the late fifteenth-century has not met with success. However, there is also another figure present who suggests a connection with the confraternity. This is the armored horseman farther back near the city gate, who carries a crossbow and wears a red hat and a reddish-brown cloak with an embroidered insignia that appears to include birds’ wings or leafy branches (fig. 3). As noted by Trowbridge (2009, p. 6), such a garment recalls the tabard worn by the provost of the Confraternity of the Holy Blood, as it is illustrated in the group’s Parure Boeck (housed in the Archief van de Broederschap van het Heilg Bloed, Bruges). In addition, payments for the red hood worn by the provost are found in the account books. Apparently, a new red hood was worn each year, and the design of the tabard also changed from provost to provost. Therefore, what is represented in the painting is more likely a reference to various designs than to a specific one of a given time.

The Attribution and Date: Early in the literature concerning this painting, its attribution was linked to North-Netherlandish artists such as Aelbert van Ouwater and Gerard David, while the latter was still in Haarlem, before he resettled in Bruges in 1484 (Grisebach 1912; Zimmermann 1917; von Baldass 1920–21; Garas 1954). Others noted the connection with works by Jan van Eyck and considered The Met panel as a free copy after an Eyckian original— Christ Carrying the Cross—known only as a replica in the Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, Budapest (Winkler 1916; Hoogewerff 1936; Schone 1937; Weale and Salinger 1947; Meiss 1956; Larsen 1960; Carter 1962; Faggin 1968; Urbach 2015) or related to the Turin-Milan Hours (Baldass 1952; Panofsky 1953). Diane Scillia (1975), on the other hand, proposed an artist in the workshop of the Utrecht Master Evert Zoudenbalch ca. 1475.[3] She noted the synthesis of painting styles of Eyckian origin, especially the composition, with figure types, narrative details, and garish colors typical of the miniaturists of Utrecht. As Maurits Smeyers and Bert Cardon (1991) pointed out, however, there was a fluid artistic exchange between Utrecht and Bruges in the fifteenth century and there are numerous examples of Eyckian and Bruges-origin motifs in Utrecht compositions.[4] Considering another influence, Stephan Kemperdick (1997) compared The Met painting to the Master of Flémalle’s Betrothal of the Virgin (Museo del Prado, Madrid) for its exoticized heads, Latin [sic] inscriptions, abrupt perspectival leaps, and particularly for the Saint Veronica figure in the foreground with the wreath-like headdress and long hair braid.

What is inescapable is the connection of The Met’s painting to the composition by Hubert or Jan van Eyck, the Christ Carrying the Cross of about 1422–25, reflected in the early sixteenth-century copy in Budapest (Winkler 1916; Pigler 1968, p. 214; Rotterdam 2012–13; Urbach 2015; fig. 4). The Budapest copy is a horizontal format, while New York painting is a vertically-oriented composition. The latter took into account other Eyckian compositions that show a procession wending its way in U-shaped fashion from one side of the painting to the other. The Way to Calvary by Hand K or the Arrest of Christ by Hand G, both from the destroyed section of the Turin-Milan Hours, from around the 1440s or 1450s and 1420s or 1440s respectively, are such examples (figs. 5, 6). The composition as well as the rhythm and flow of the procession in the Way to Calvary is especially comparable to The Met’s painting when the orientation of the former is reversed. The Arrest of Christ provides a model for the wispy clouds, the Flemish town, including the Jerusalem temple, in the far distance, and the high horizon line of The Met’s painting.

Specific details of The Met’s painting appear to be assimilated from the Eyckian Christ Carrying the Cross in Budapest. Most notable is the walled-in Flemish town with regularly placed towers between crenellated walls that extend from the city gate at the far right (fig. 7). Placed prominently within this town, and representing the holy city of Jerusalem, is an approximation of Herod’s third Temple of Solomon. It references the Dome of the Rock with the addition of flying Gothic buttresses. The group of men on horseback riding out through the city gate behind Christ is based on the Eyckian composition (fig. 8), as is the group of figures heading up the steep hill with the two thieves and the onlookers at the lower left (fig. 9). In each case, certain figures are copied almost exactly, even if select ones are moved in position. These various figural motifs are found not only in the Budapest copy of the van Eyck painting, but also in a surviving silverpoint drawing from the Circle of Van Eyck, namely the Cavalcade of about 1450 (from Christ Carrying the Cross, Herzog-Anton-Ulrich Museum, Braunschweig, fig. 10).

The artist of The Met’s painting was quite familiar with the Eyckian composition and seamlessly integrated various motifs into his own reworking of the theme. While a drawing on paper was likely the guiding model for the rather complex composition, The Met’s painting shows an extremely fully worked up preparatory sketch in a liquid medium on the ground of the panel that prepared not only the composition but a detailed rendering of the figures. The underdrawing features very fine parallel hatching and short curved strokes for the modeling of the draperies of the figures and an extremely detailed rendering of the architecture of the walled-in city (fig. 11). Such a meticulous preparatory sketch may have served as a vidimus produced for the approval of the patron before the painting could proceed. There are numerous adjustments from the underdrawing to the final painted stage, most of them minor in nature, except for an additional figure at the base of Golgotha which was painted out (see Technical Notes).

The condition of the painting makes quality judgments concerning the figures somewhat difficult. Nonetheless, it appears that more than one painter worked on this rather large panel. The detailed characterization of some of the male heads, which appear almost portraitlike within the group emanating from the city gate, and the beautiful rendering and tender expression of Christ’s physiognomy depart rather dramatically from the secondary figures, some of which are far more caricature-like and others even blandly depicted (see Technical Notes for further remarks on the differences in painting technique). It is likely that this painting was a workshop effort of more than one hand. This master may well have come from the North Netherlands, as Diane Scillia, proposed, and was certainly aware of Eyckian manuscript illumination. However, the detailed nature of the presentation that indicates specialized knowledge of Bruges and its Confraternity of the Holy Blood points to an artist working in that city around 1470.

Especially revealing in terms of where The Met’s painting was made is its specific connections with the activities of the Confraternity of the Holy Blood, particularly with the almost yearly processions in honor of the relic and the tableaux vivants that often accompanied the procession (Trowbridge 2009, pp. 6–9). As such, the painting commemorates for the unknown person or group who commissioned it the yearly processions celebrating Bruges’ most renowned relic of the Holy Blood. The panel is large (42 3/8 x 32 3/8 in., or 107.6 x 82.2 cm) and unlikely to have adorned the walls of a private house. Rather, its size and particular reference to the Confraternity of the Holy Blood and its annual processions suggest a placement perhaps in the meeting rooms of the confraternity or in a chapel associated with that group. That the panel was originally in a public or semi-public location in Bruges is supported by the fact that Gerard David’s Christ Carrying the Cross of about 1510 (1975.1.119A–B) appears to reference the central group of Christ, Simon of Cyrene, and two of the soldiers who beat Christ as he trudges forward under the weight of the cross. Based on the dendrochronology of the panel by Peter Klein, the painting could have been produced anytime from 1463 onwards (see Technical Notes).

Maryan Ainsworth 2022

[1] Meditations on the Life of Christ, trans. By I. Ragusa and R. B. Green (Princeton Monographs in Art and Archaeology, XXXV), Princeton, J., 1961, pp. 330-32, ch. LXXVII; Ludolphus de Saxonia, Vita Jesu Christi, d. by L. M. Rigollot, Paris and Brussels, [1865], pp. 646–50.
[2] Ragusa and Green 1961, pp. 331–32 (for the Pseudo-Bonaventure); for Ludolphus de Saxonia, see Rigollot 1878, IV, p. 88, par. 3.
[3] On the Master of Evert Zoudenbalch, see The Golden Age of Dutch Manuscript Painting, exh. cat. Pierpont Morgan Library (March 1–May 6,1990), Braziller, New York, pp. 198–211, nos. 61–65.
[4] Maurits Smeyers and Bert Cardon, “Utrecht and Bruges—South and North ‘Boundless’ Relations in the 15th Century,” in Koert van der Horst and Johann-Christian Klamt, eds., Masters and Miniatures, Proceedings of the Congress on Medieval Manuscript Illumination in the Northern Netherlands (Utrecht, December 10–13, 1989), Doornspijk, 1991, pp. 96–99.

Support: The support was constructed from three planks of oak, with the grain oriented vertically. The planks were originally held in place with dowels, two of which are visible on the reverse (see fig. 11 above). Analysis with dendrochronology indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1463 with a more plausible date of 1469 onwards.[1] The wood originated in the Baltic/Polish region.

A strip of non-original black paint varying in width from 0.5 to 1 cm is present along the left, top, and right edges of the painting, complicating determination of the original dimensions of the panel. Despite the tight cropping of the painted composition at the left and right sides, there does not appear to be any original paint underneath the black painted borders. In addition, the surface level is slightly lower, suggesting that these were originally unpainted margins and that the dimensions are largely preserved. Furthermore, there are remnants of bevels on the reverse of the panel, seemingly from the original frame, which would indicate that the panel is close to its original size, with the margins trimmed only slightly. The bottom edge has been trimmed, but possibly only by a small amount (a centimeter or two).

At some point before entering the Met’s collection the panel was planed down on the reverse, possibly by half its thickness as suggested by the partially exposed dowel holes, and a cradle attached. The panel now measures about 5 mm thick on average.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a whitish ground. Examination with infrared reflectography reveals the presence of an extensive underdrawing, executed using a liquid medium (fig. 12).[2] The artist has used the underdrawing to plan most of the important elements in this complex composition, drawing in a free manner nearly all the figures and objects in the scene and much of the background, including buildings both large and small. He also added some shading to his underdrawing with neat, parallel hatchmarks; these are often located in the drapery of the larger figures and especially those fabrics that were ultimately painted using red lakes. He frequently added a few short, parallel, curved strokes to indicate volume in the faces, for example, at the cheeks of Christ and Veronica, beneath the eye of the weeping mother at far left, or even the cheek of the Virgin in the middle distance. It appears that the underdrawing was done by a single hand.

When the composition was worked up in paint, many minor alterations were made to the underdrawing, generally consisting of adjustments to the positions of drapery, feet, and horses’ hooves in the foreground and some changes to the buildings in the background. In addition to changing the locations of some windows, roofs and so forth, the peaked tower in the center of the city wall and the roof over the gated entrance were not included in the underdrawing; they were simply crenellated walls.

Paint Layers: Assessment of the technique is somewhat complicated by the painting’s condition. The painting suffered from a harsh cleaning at some point in its history, perhaps most readily apparent in the sky where the clouds are quite abraded. On closer examination it becomes clear that much of the painting has been thinned to varying degrees, and although the current restoration helps to unify the composition and lessen the impact of the damage, the abrasion complicates examination of the original technique. This is most hindering in the figures and particularly the heads, where there seems to be evidence of more than one hand; however, the condition of the painting makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.

Undoubtedly there are differences in the appearance of the heads from, for example, the finely modeled features of Christ to the almost caricature-like rendering of the soldier to his left. The variations could be due in part to an artist’s desire to make visual distinctions between the holy and the evil figures in addition to the varying states of preservation, but on closer examination the differences in the rendering of faces appear to be the result of different painting techniques.

The fleshtones in Christ’s face were built up with a focused use of lead white and softly modeled glazes of warmer paint. His features were created with tiny brushstrokes in a complex build-up. For example, the naturalistic appearance of his eyelids, which almost seem to glisten with emotion, were created by first using a bright orangish-pink paint followed by mixing grey and white to suggest the highlight on the lower lid and a dark brown paint stroke at the upper lid (fig. 13). Contours were not starkly outlined but suggested by shading. A similar approach also appears to be present in the red robed man astride a horse at middle right. In an example of a different technique, the soldier to the upper left of Christ, wearing red and seen in profile, was painted with more opaque paint mixtures, smoothly blended so that few brushstrokes are apparent (fig. 14). Details were created in a simpler fashion, with a single, solid pink-orange paint stroke for the lower lid as opposed to the more sensitively rendered eyes of Christ and his features are more reliant on black contour lines. It appears that the thief that this soldier escorts was rendered in a similar manner, as was the grimacing soldier to the left of Christ, although the latter’s head is rather damaged and retouched.

There are some heads that appear to be still different. The older man directly behind Christ, wearing a pink tunic and green hose, was painted with some sensitivity and without the aforementioned dark contour lines but using discrete brush strokes that are left visible as hatching and don’t seem comparable to either of these two types (fig. 15). The diversity of technique observed in the heads raises the possibility that several artists worked on this painting.

Examination of the clothing also suggests more than one hand. In some instances, the drapery is impressively realistic. See for example the man at the middle left, seen from behind in the pink robe with golden embroidery, in which the folds of the drapery are convincingly rendered with the dark blue band following the undulations and the folds all cinched together at his waist by the golden chain (fig. 16). This seems at odds with the red robe of Veronica, which does not drape in a realistic fashion, but bulges in unexpected places. Interestingly, the folds are different in the underdrawing; possibly Veronica was painted by a different hand than the artist who made the underdrawing.

In general, the small details of costume and armor in most figures were depicted with care and sensitivity. Tiny strings and ropes securing clothing and even arms, as with the two thieves, were precisely painted, with minute highlights creating form and suggesting textures. The boots are all quite striking. See for example the rendering of the seam at the back of the yellow boots of the onlooker at lower left and the carefully limned highlights at the soles, or the miniscule paintstrokes used to suggest fraying of the greyish-brown boots of the man to his left. The armor and weapons were generally quite carefully done as well, with convincing depictions of reflections.

Golden details were rendered with paint in imitation of gold in some instances and gilded in others, with gold leaf applied on top of a dark ochre-colored mordant. The halos were all gilded. And most of the golden objects in the scene—the medallions on the horses’ bridles at right and at left, the reliquary staff held by the man on horseback at the middle right—were mordant-gilded. On the other hand, the treatment of gold-embroidered clothing varies: the inscriptions and golden embellishments on the armor and hat of the man on horseback at middle right were gilded, and the man in red behind him also has a small amount of gilding at the top of his hat. Veronica has gilding at the hem of her red robe, but details on her headdress and the gold threaded brocade on her sleeve were painted in imitation of gold. The woman to the right of the group of three Marys in the middle distance, dressed in a reddish-brown robe, has details on her dress that imitate gold. The man at the middle left, dressed in yellow and seen from behind, has gilded embroidery on his robe while the man to his left, in red, has golden embroidery on his robe and hat that was entirely painted. The decision to use mordant gilding as opposed to paint for golden details does not seem to be consistent and might bear consideration alongside the question of workshop production and multiple hands at work.

Minor adjustments appear to have been made as part of the painting process but are of little significance. However, one figure—located above the reddish-haired thief—was edited out of the composition. This man was apparently not underdrawn, only added during the course of painting and then removed, seemingly to improve the composition. The changes to the city wall seem to have been partly worked out during the painting stage: some foliage that was ultimately painted over by the peaked tower and an early idea for the roof over the entrance to the city at right can be seen in the infrared reflectogram.

It appears that many passages were painted with red lakes that have faded to varying degrees, and as a result some of the color combinations are not as striking as they likely were originally. In a few places, a bright orange-red was juxtaposed with a red that would have been a deeper, richer color, possibly even a plum-like red, but now appears pinkish-orange. Christ’s robe, now a greyish blue with a few passages of violet, would originally have been purple. The purple robe of Christ in the picture in Budapest (see fig. 4 and Catalogue Entry) may help suggest its original appearance. There are a few other pale greyish-purple details that surely would also have been a rich purple. Green glazes in the landscape have discolored to brown, as is characteristic of copper-containing greens, and have been somewhat abraded, revealing the pale greenish underpaint.

There is a good deal of abrasion to the painting, as stated above. This ranges from the rubbing of upper glazes to the wholescale abrasion of paint, seemingly explaining the unresolved appearance of the armor of the man on horseback at middle right. The gilding is rubbed to varying degrees. The haloes of the group of Marys and John in the middle ground are quite messy; these may have been re-gilded at some point. The glazes and painted details on the gilding at right are rubbed. There are several losses along the joins and near the edges of the panel, in particular along the bottom edge and the lower corners. Some gilded passages were also embellished with glazes and details added with paint, now largely abraded, as in the reliquary staff held by the man on horseback at the middle right and the ornaments on his horse.

Sophie Scully 2022

[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, report dated 14 August 1997. The report can be found in the files of the Department of Paintings Conservation. “The youngest heartwood ring was formed out in the year 1452. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1461, more plausible is a felling date between 1465..1467….1471 + x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1463 upwards. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and 2 years for seasoning, as probably usual in the 14th/15th century, a creation is plausible from 1469 upwards.”
[2] Infrared reflectography was acquired with an OSIRIS InGaAs near-infrared camera fitted with a 6-element, 150mm focal length f/5.6–f/45 lens; 900-1700nm spectral response, 2022.

Inscription: Inscribed on pink tunic of rider, center left: (on edge of right sleeve) DAER SAT hI BLOET . . . (there he sat bleeding); (on edge of left sleeve) Al hAT EEN SCA . . . (already has a treasure) / . . . BEEf GHELOVTE . . . (trembling [in reverance to God] trust [in God's word]); (at left shoulder) OMAGAME (procession); [other inscriptions illegible]

Hans Graf Wilczek, Burg Kreuzenstein, near Vienna (until 1907; sold to Kleinberger); [Kleinberger, Paris and New York, 1907–10; as by Dieric Bouts, sold to Pratt]; George D. Pratt, Glen Cove, N.Y. (1910–d. 1935; as by Dieric Bouts; life interest to his widow, Vera Amherst Hale Pratt, 1935–43)

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art," September 22, 1998–February 21, 1999, no. 8.

August Grisebach. "Architekturen auf niederländischen und französischen Gemälden des 15. Jahrhunderts: Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung der Formensprache der nordischen Renaissance. II." Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft 5 (July 1912), p. 265 n. 2, pl. 61, fig. 9 (detail), discusses a painting of this subject in Budapest [Szépmüvészeti Múzeum], which he attributes to a Dutch painter from the second half of the 15th century; mentions the present work as a variant of the Budapest composition, with a very similar city view, and attributes it to a Dutch artist from the end of the 15th century.

Gabriel de Térey. Katalog der Gemäldegalerie alter Meister [Museum der bildenden Künste, Budapest XXV.]. Budapest, 1913, p. 158, mentions our panel in relation to the one in Budapest, which he catalogues as by a Netherlandish master about 1550.

Friedrich Winkler. "Über verschollene Bilder der Brüder Van Eyck." Jahrbuch der Königlich Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen 37 (1916), pp. 291–93, ill., calls our picture an early 16th-century copy after an Eyckian original; illustrates a miniature of the same subject from the Turin Hours, attributing it to the follower of Van Eyck, active in the 1440s, who completed the Turin-Milan Hours; also reproduces as "Kopie nach van Eyck" a silverpoint drawing of horsemen in Braunschweig [now Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum] that has points in common with the Budapest and New York variants.

F. Winkler. "Gemäldegalerie: Über eine frühholländische Kreuztragung [response to Ref. Zimmermann 1917]." Amtliche Berichte aus den Königlichen Kunstsammlungen 39 (September 1917), cols. 24–27, fig. 7, rejects the attribution to Gerard David proposed by Zimmermann and considers the prototype for our painting to be by Van Eyck and not by Aelbert van Outwater; based on stylistic similarities suggests that its painter was David's teacher.

Heinrich Zimmermann. "Gemäldegalerie: Über eine frühholländische Kreuztragung." Amtliche Berichte aus den Königlichen Kunstsammlungen 38 (September 1917), cols. 16–20, 23, fig. 7 (mistakenly identified as the Budapest version), ascribes it to Gerard David before 1483, while he was still at work in Haarlem; believes it is based on a copy by Geertgen tot Sint Jans of a painting from about 1445, possibly by his teacher, Aelbert van Outwater.

Ludwig von Baldass. "Ein Frühwerk des Geertgen tot Sint Jans und die holländische Malerei des XV. Jahrhunderts." Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 35 (1920–21), p. 32, fig. 18, based on a photograph, attributes it to Gerard David; compares the group of riders here to those on the left wing of a dismantled altarpiece by David [now Konijnklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp]; calls it a "free translation" of a lost composition by Aelbert van Outwater, now known only through a faithful copy in Budapest; comments on the similarity of figure types and landscape with those in paintings by Geertgen tot Sint Jans; supports Zimmermann's hypothesis (see Ref. 1917) that David's version [i.e. the present picture] is mediated by Geertgen's stylistic adaptation of Ouwater's composition.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 1, Die Van Eyck, Petrus Christus. Berlin, 1924, p. 121, calls it a free adaptation of the original picture from which the Budapest version was copied.

G. J. Hoogewerff. De noord-nederlandsche schilderkunst. Vol. 1, The Hague, 1936, pp. 505–8, dates The Met's painting about 1450, and the related Budapest version, which he attributes to the Master of Saint Elisabeth (the painter of scenes from the Life of Saint Elisabeth, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam), toward the end of the century; suggests that there was an intermediate composition, perhaps by Petrus Christus or Aelbert van Outwater, which goes back to a miniature in the Turin-Milan Hours.

Wolfgang Schöne. "Über einige altniederländische Bilder, vor allem in Spanien." Jahrbuch der königlich preuszischen Kunstsammlungen 58 (1937), p. 157 n. 4, lists it among pictures that record the original composition by Hubert or Jan van Eyck.

Alan Priest. "Loans from the Collection of George D. Pratt." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 35 (December 1940), p. 237, considers it a Flemish painting of the mid-15th century; relates its figural types and the Temple of Solomon in the background to those in the Crucifixion and Last Judgment diptych [MMA 33.92ab] and the Turin-Milan Hours.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 23–25, ill., as by a Flemish painter of the second half of the 15th century; mention related compositions in Budapest, the Suermondt Museum, Aachen, and in a picture exhibited by the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1906 [now Johnson Collection, Philadelphia Museum of Art]; cite a related drawing in the Albertina, Vienna, and the silverpoint in Brunswick; believe the silverpoint and our painting adhere most closely to the archaic forms and costumes which must have existed in the Van Eyck prototype from the first quarter of the 15th century; note that our painting differs from other versions in adding in the middle ground the group of the Virgin and Saint John with mourning women, inspired by a passage from Saint Bonaventure's "Mirror of the Blessed Life" and executed in a style current after the middle of the 15th century.

Andreas Pigler. "Das Problem der Budapester Kreutztragung." Phoebus 3, no. 1 (1950–51), pp. 16, 20, dates it about 1500.

Ludwig Baldass. Jan van Eyck. New York, 1952, p. 96 n. 2, p. 286, connects our painting and several related works to a lost composition by the chief master of the Turin Book of Hours; considers the miniature of this subject from the Turin manuscript [now destroyed, but see Ref. Winkler 1916, ill. p. 293] an imitation of the lost original.

Erwin Panofsky. Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character. Cambridge, Mass., 1953, vol. 1, pp. 237, 453 n. 2 (to p. 237), discusses it with other variants of the composition, which he believes derives from a lost original by the artist known as "Hand G" in the Turin-Milan Hours.

Klára Garas. "Some Problems of Early Dutch and Flemish Painting." Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 1, no. 3–4 (1954), pp. 249, 257–58, 262 n. 58, ill., suggests our picture is Dutch in origin; dates it about 1500, certainly after the Budapest picture, on stylistic grounds and due to peculiarities of Veronica's costume; considers the Budapest painting an original work by a North Netherlandish artist—the Master of the Turin-Milan miniatures, possibly Albert van Outwater—working around 1440, independently of the Van Eycks; disagrees with the position of Wehle and Salinger that the MMA painting is closest to the original and calls it instead "a characteristic piece of 'pasticcio,'" containing elements and types collected from a number of sources; notes that the composition is inordinately crowded, with the foreground, central space and background telescoping into each other, all of which, she believes, results from the copying process.

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 35.

Julius S. Held. "Erwin Panofsky, 'Early Netherlandish Painting, Its Origin[s] and Character'." Art Bulletin 37 (September 1955), pp. 222–23.

R. A. K[och]. "Martin Schongauer's 'Christ Bearing the Cross'." Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University 14, no. 2 (1955), pp. 25, 28–29 n. 16, ill., mentions it as one of the few paintings made before Schongauer's engraving of Christ Bearing the Cross which include the fainting Virgin supported by John the Evangelist and a group of mourning figures, a scene inspired by the writings of Pseudo-Bonaventura which may ultimately have originated in the Eyckian prototype.

M. M. S[alinger]. Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 13 (April 1955), ill. on front cover (color detail) with text on reverse.

Millard Meiss in "Jan van Eyck and the Italian Renaissance." Venezia e l'Europa: atti del XVIII congresso internazionale di storia dell'arte. Venice, 1956, p. 69, fig. 25, calls it a copy after one of Jan van Eyck's early paintings; notes that its curling compositional plan conveys a sense of movement in space and progression in time, one of the enduring "patterns of vision" established by Jan which had a long-lasting impact on the Northern tradition.

Dieric Bouts. Exh. cat., Palais des Beaux-Arts. Brussels, [1957?], p. 150.

Erik Larsen. Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York. Utrecht, 1960, pp. 39–40, 110, dates it to the end of the 15th century and believes it reflects a lost composition by Hubert van Eyck.

Federico Zeri. Due dipinti, la filologia e un nome: il Maestro delle Tavole Barberini. Turin, 1961, p. 58.

David G. Carter. "The Providence Crucifixion: Its Place and Meaning for Dutch Fifteenth Century Painting." Bulletin of Rhode Island School of Design 48 (May 1962), pp. 14, 16–18, 24 n. 64, figs. 17, 22, 27 (overall and details), discusses it along with other "free copies" after Jan van Eyck; cites a number of shared motifs in the MMA Christ Bearing the Cross, the Budapest version and a Crucifixion scene at the Rhode Island School of Design, Providence; identifies the figure in our picture with a clean-shaven profile and chaperon, in the second row of horsemen, as "a slightly generalized" portrait of John of Bavaria, Count of Holland.

Jan Goris [Marnix Gijsen]. Jan van Eyck in de Kempen. [Arendonk], 1964, p. 29, claims that the "mill" is the Van Eyck's family crest that Jan used as his signature; notes that the mills represented in the Budapest painting have been ignored by the copyist who painted the MMA version.

Raymond Bouyer Giorgio T. Faggin in L'opera completa dei Van Eyck. Milan, 1968, p. 88, notes that our picture, along with related Dutch panel paintings and manuscript illuminations seems to confirm that the original composition was painted by Jan van Eyck in the Hague, where he is documented between 1422 and 1424.

Carol Herselle Krinsky. "Representations of the Temple of Jerusalem before 1500." Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 33 (1970), pp. 14, 16 n. 61, pl. 4e, notes that the huge multi-lobed building in the background of our painting is a fantastic type of the Temple of Jerusalem, "based in the loosest possible way—if at all—on the Dome of the Rock"; believes this type originated in Van Eyck's workshop and continued to influence artists until about 1500.

Charles Sterling. "Observations on Petrus Christus." Art Bulletin 53 (March 1971), pp. 9 n. 38, 13, discusses it in relation to another variant of the composition in the Prado, Madrid, made by Lodewijck Allynckbrood, a Flemish artist who moved in 1439 to Valencia, Spain; calls the MMA work a "late fifteenth-century (Dutch?) picture".

Diane Graybowski Scillia. "Gerard David and Manuscript Illumination in the Low Countries, 1480–1509." PhD diss., Case Western Reserve University, 1975, pp. iv, 79–97, 100 n. 5, pp. 101–2 nn. 16–20, pp. 103–07 nn. 30–32, 38, 43, p. 110 n. 59, pp. 135, 258, 269, fig. 5, suggests it was painted about 1475 at Haarlem by an artist from the workshop of the Soudenbalch Master, active in Utrecht; notes that the painting synthesizes features characteristic of two pictorial traditions as it uses a composition of Eyckian origin: facial types, costumes, narrative details and even garish colors—characteristic of the miniature style of the Utrecht school—and the stocky figures with geometricaly rounded and convincingly modeled forms typical of the Haarlem School; observes that the continuous narrative, constructed with distinct cells of space that lead into the distance, is a technique developed by Albert van Outwater and his Haarlem followers; sees the concern with establishing a middle ground and the convincing recession of figures in space as other signs of Haarlem influence; questions the attribution of the landscapes here and in the related versions in Budapest and Aachen to a lost original by Van Eyck and suggests, instead, that they reflect a common Utrecht tradition, one found in miniatures of the Master of Evert van Soudenbalch; considers our painter the probable teacher of Gerard David, whose early works display a distinct stylistic affinity with this work.

Charles Sterling. "Jan van Eyck avant 1432." Revue de l'art no. 33 (1976), pp. 43–44, ill.

Walter S. Gibson. The Paintings of Cornelis Engebrechtsz. PhD diss., Harvard University. New York, 1977, p. 38, 45 n. 19.

David Giles Carter. Letter to Polly J. Sartori. December 13, 1979, associates our painting stylistically with a Saint Anne with the Virgin and Christ Child at the Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent, Utrecht; comments on the Dutch inscriptions.

Susan Urbach. "Research Report on Examinations of Underdrawings in Some Early Netherlandish and German Panels in the Budapest Museum of Fine Arts II." Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Ed. Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq and Roger van Schoute. Colloque 8, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1991, p. 85, observes some strong parallel hatching lines in its partly visible underdrawing, but notes that, according to Ainsworth, there is not much underdrawing overall; concludes that the painting is not a mechanical copy; suggests that the "fragmentary and corrupted inscription (Dutch or Flemish?)" on the dress of the herald may refer to the cult of the Holy Blood of Christ.

Albert Châtelet. "Peinture et enluminure au XVe siècle." Masters and Miniatures: Proceedings of the Congress on Medieval Manuscript Illumination in the Northern Netherlands. Ed. Koert van der Horst and Johann-Christian Klamt. Doornspijk, The Netherlands, 1991, p. 374.

Dagmar Thoss. "Der 'Meister des Schwarzen Gebetbuchs': Ein holländischer Buchmaler?" Masters and Miniatures: Proceedings of the Congress on Medieval Manuscript Illumination in the Northern Netherlands. Ed. Koert van der Horst and Johann-Christian Klamt. Doornspijk, The Netherlands, 1991, p. 152, fig. 5.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 257, ill.

Stephan Kemperdick. Der Meister von Flémalle: Die Werkstatt Robert Campins und Rogier van der Weyden. Turnhout, Belgium, 1997, pp. 106, 109, 112, fig. 126, compares this picture with the Master of Flémalle's "Betrothal of the Virgin" (Prado, Madrid), noting that both include exoticized heads and Latin [sic] and fantastic inscriptions on the costumes; comments on the shared predilection for grimaces, large heads, and abrupt perspectival leaps, as well as the similarity of the landscapes; notes a number of closely related details in the kneeling figure of Saint Veronica in our painting and the female attendant in Jacques Daret's Nativity (Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, Madrid): the head seen from behind in profile, her wreath-like headpiece and long braid.

Silvia Danesi Squarzina. "La Sistina di Sisto IV e l'eridità del pensiero religioso medievale." Le due Rome del Quattrocento: Melozzo, Antoniazzo, e la cultura artistica de '400 romano. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Università di Roma "La Sapienza"—Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Istituto di Storia dell'Arte. Ed. Sergio Rossi and Stefano Valeri. Rome, 1997, p. 116, fig. 15.

Peter Klein. Letter to Maryan Ainsworth. August 14, 1997, based on dendrochronological analysis, suggests this painting's earliest possible date of creation would be 1463 upward; notes that the panel is made of three oak boards which originate from the Baltic/Polish region.

Maryan W. Ainsworth. "A Meeting of Sacred and Secular Worlds." From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth and Keith Christiansen. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1998, pp. 107–9, no. 8, ill. (color), dates it about 1470, ascribes it to a north Netherlandish (possibly Utrecht) painter, and finds the style close to illuminated manuscripts associated with the Utrecht Master of Evert Zoudenbalch.

Peter Ainsworth and Tom Scott, ed. Regions and Landscapes: Reality and Imagination in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Bern, 2000, pp. 13–15, 18, ill. on cover, discuss the round domed building in the background, commenting that it "seems to have sprung largely from the artist's imagination"; note that the juxtaposition of that fantastical structure with a contemporaneous Netherlandish bustling city was neither necessarily contradictory nor mutually exclusive, but characteristic of Netherlandish art.

Mar Borobia in Gerard David y el paisaje flamenco. Exh. cat., Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza. Madrid, 2003, pp. 79–80, 83, fig. 37 (color).

Mark Trowbridge. "Jerusalem Transposed: A Fifteenth-Century Panel for the Bruges Market." Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 1 (Winter 2009), figs. 1, 8–9, 11–12 (color, overall and details) [DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2009.1.1.4], attributes it to the Master of Evert van Zoudenbalch; discusses fifteenth- and sixteenth-century sources that provide details about the Bruges Ommegang as it is represented here, and transcribes several inscriptions on the garment of the figure in a pink tunic at middle left.

Susan Urbach. Early Netherlandish Paintings. London, 2015, vol. 1, pp. 142–43, 150, 153–55, 157–58, 160 nn. 33, 35, 37, figs. 11.17, 11.18, 11.19 (color, overall and detail), under no. 11.

Sabine Pénot and Elke Oberthaler in Bruegel: The Master. Exh. cat., Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. London, 2018, p. 201 n. 15, under no. 67.

Elliott D. Wise and Matthew Havili. "Amber, Blood, and the Holy Face of Jesus: The Materiality of Devotion in Late Medieval Bruges." "Quid est Sacramentum?" Visual Representation of Sacred Mysteries in Early Modern Europe, 1400–1700. Ed. Walter S. Melion et al. Leiden, 2020, pp. 344, 346–47, figs. 12.9, 12.9a (color, overall and detail).