The Crucifixion with Donors and Saints Peter and Margaret of Antioch

The Artist: Cornelis Engebrechtsz (ca. 1460/62–1527), who lived his entire life in Leiden, is considered the first important painter of that north Netherlandish city. In his 1604 Het Schilder-Boeck, or Book of Painters, Karel Van Mander does not name the painter’s teacher, but notes that Engebrechtsz trained Lucas van Leyden, who surpassed Engebrechtsz in fame.[1] He trained his three sons in painting, one of whom, Pieter Cornelisz Kunst (ca. 1490–1560/61), became a noted glass painter. Cornelis Cornelisz (ca. 1493–1546) and Lucas Cornelisz (ca. 1495–1552) were also members of the workshop that, according to Van Mander, starting in 1516, included Lucas van Leyden and Aertgen van Leyden.

There survive two fully intact, documented altarpieces that Engebrechtsz executed for the Augustinian convent of Mariënpoel at Oegstgeest, outside the Leiden city walls. These are the Lamentation Triptych of about 1508, and the Crucifixion Triptych of about 1517–20, both of which were mentioned by Van Mander and today remain in Leiden, Museum De Lakenhal (see figs. 1 and 2 above). Along with the two wings from the Van der Does-Van Poelgeest Epitaph of about 1517–19 (also Museum De Lakenhal), these works provide the benchmarks for the attribution and dating of other panels attributed to Engebrechtsz. The workshop was apparently engaged with several of the extant paintings, with assistants finishing ones that were left incomplete at Engrebrechtsz’s death in 1527. Recent technical examination of the key commissioned works has helped to define more clearly the working procedures and stylistic characteristics of Engebrechtsz’s autograph paintings and to separate them from workshop products.[2]

The Painting: The drama of this Crucifixion is heightened by the tight cropping of the picture and the symmetrical presentation of the figures all pressed together onto the foreground plane. This is enhanced by the impossibly exaggerated poses of the two thieves writhing in agony on either side of Christ’s drooping dead body on the cross, all silhouetted against the dark blue sky. Mirroring Christ’s pose, and quietly expressing her extreme grief, the Virgin tilts her head toward her right as Saint John, sighing with open mouth, painfully regards the lifeless body of Jesus. The Virgin and John serve as intercessors between Christ and the kneeling donors, who, by contrast, appear immobile, with their hands raised in prayer, inwardly focusing on their devotions. Although the identities of the donors are not known, their attendant patron Saints Peter and Margaret of Antioch probably indicate their first names. In an allusion to the celebration of the Eucharist, blue monochrome angels gather into chalices the blood dripping from Christ’s wounds at his hands and feet. The painting is viewed from below, and this as well as the dramatic foreshortening of the heads of Saint John and the Good Thief—both accented in red garb—suggest that the painting was hung high up on a wall, perhaps in a chapel that may have served as the family burial site.

The Attribution and Date: The basic composition, comprising the essential figures of Christ on the cross, the Virgin Mary, Saint John, and the angels, derives from an engraving by the Master with the Banderoles (Gibson 1977; fig. 3). This master worked in the north Netherlands around 1450–75, and it was in this region as well where the painting was produced in Leiden. Alban Head first rightly noted in a letter to then-curator Roger Fry (March 21, 1906) the influence on The Met Painting of Cornelis Engebrechtsz’s Crucifixion Triptych (thought then to date about 1508, and now reconsidered as about 1517–20, Stedelijk Museum, De Lakenhal, Leiden; fig. 2), a connection and attribution that found favor subsequently with Hulin de Loo (1906) and Conway (1921). Wescher (1924) deemed The Met painting Engebrechtsz’s latest surviving work, and this was endorsed by Dülberg (1929), Friedländer (1932), Weale and Salinger (1947), Pelinck (1949), Gibson (1977), and Sintobin (1998). Only Hoogewerff (1947) signaled reservations early on about the attribution when he proposed that the painting was started by Engebrechtsz, and subsequently completed by Aert Claez and another assistant.

Clearly in the style of Engebrechtsz, the painting most closely resembles the late phase of the oeuvre, when—as with the Crucifixion Triptych—the painter began to assimilate the characteristics of Antwerp Mannerism. Rhythmically active figural compositions, contorted poses, fluttering draperies, and coloristic effects favoring couleur changeant effects all comprise the features of this new mode enthusiastically adopted by painters. Increasingly aware of the market demand for such works, painters like Engebrechtsz embraced the new style and his workshop began to implement streamlined methods of production. This meant sharing the production of paintings among master, assistants, and pupils (see Technical Notes).[3] In the estimation of Filedt Kok and Gibson (Filedt Kok et al., 2014, see pp. 183–216), one can identify the increased participation of the workshop starting around 1520.

An evaluation of The Met Crucifixion is compromised by the fact that the painting has suffered over time, due to abrasion and losses especially along the horizontal joins of the panel where there is considerable restoration (see Technical Notes). However, even taking this factor into account, the painting shows certain differences from the later works, in particular the Crucifixion Triptych (fig. 2). The palette of The Met painting is more limited and restrained, and there is a greater emphasis on contrasts of light and dark areas with less attention given to details. The imprecise brocade pattern of Margaret of Antioch’s robe, for example, is not found anywhere else in the works assigned to Engebrechtsz himself (see Esther van Duijn in Filedt Kok et al., 2014, Appendix B). This more general approach to technique and handling seems to fit the streamlined technique that became a hallmark of the workshop. Among other observations, it is not entirely clear whether differences evident in the appearance of certain heads in the painting—for example, the heads of the donor figures compared to the heads of the holy figures—is due to the participation of more than one workshop assistant or to condition factors, such as the loss of modulating glazes (see Technical Notes).

Looking at the preparatory stages of the painting, that is, the underdrawing, we also find differences from Engebrechtsz’s characteristic manner of working. While Engebrechtsz employed a brush underdrawing with a liquid medium (see Filedt Kok et al. 2014), the underdrawing of The Met painting is in a dry medium (figs. 4, 5). Revealing a highly sculptural approach, the remarkably detailed modeling of the figures and their draperies in the preparatory stage of the Lakenhal Crucifixion Triptych, appearing like a finished drawing (Filedt Kok et al. 2014, pp. 76–79), is not matched by the sketchy, more haphazard handling of The Met Crucifixion (see Technical Notes). The latter gives only a summary idea of the composition and does not serve a preparatory function for the detailed modeling of forms. This cursory underdrawing in a dry material is also evident in several other paintings now assigned to the Engebrechtsz workshop (Filedt Kok et al. 2014, p. 113). The apparent speed with which The Met painting is carried out also testifies to the simplified approach of the Engebrechtsz workshop in the last half of the 1520s.

In the Leiden exhibition of 2011, The Met Crucifixion was installed adjacent to the Lakenhal Crucifixion Triptych, and this made all the more clear the pronounced differences in technique and handling (Filedt Kok et al. 2014, pp. 112–13). Although certainly within the Engebrechtsz group, The Met painting is now most likely to have been painted by a workshop assistant than by Engebrechtsz himself.

Maryan W. Ainsworth 2022

[1] For the most authoritative biographies and the most recent monograph on Engebrechtsz, see Jeremy Bangs, Cornelis Engebrechtsz’s Leiden: Studies in Cultural History, Assen, 1979; and Filedt Kok et al. 2014, especially pp. 13–29.
[2] Filedt Kok et al. 2014, passim.
[3] Filedt Kok et al. 2014, pp. 73, 75.

Support: The panel support was constructed from three planks of horizontally grained oak. Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1501 and a more plausible creation date of 1507 onwards.[1] The planks were originally joined with V-shaped joins (see fig. 6 above). The original dimensions of the panel and the painted surface are nearly preserved: barbes and unpainted wood margins are present at all edges. Furthermore, there is a bevel on the reverse, likely related to the original framing. The panel appears to have undergone several structural treatments, including the installation of a cradle and its removal, repairs at the joins, and the addition of the current square buttons, or battens, along the joins (fig. 7).[2] It appears that the panel was planed down somewhat to create a flat surface for the cradle, but only by a minimal amount; it currently measures about 8 mm thick.

At the lower left corner of the panel there is a triangular wooden insert, apparently added to compensate for damage to that corner, and a very small corner of the painted surface was reconstructed. The location of this repair is apparent in the x-radiograph (fig. 8).

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a whitish ground, likely containing chalk. The composition was sketched out on the panel in an extensive underdrawing, which is somewhat apparent through the paint layers in normal viewing conditions but made visible in the infrared reflectogram.[3] The underdrawing was executed using a dry material in a sketchy and seemingly speedy manner (figs. 4, 5). At several places the artist went over a line a second time as he searched for the correct contour or overlapped a previous stroke to continue a curving form. The eyes of the figures were indicated by loose circles, the ends of which often do not meet. There is a good amount of hatching in the figures, which also seems to have been added quickly, as the hatchmarks are not evenly spaced nor entirely parallel. It is unlikely that the hatchmarks served as an exact guide for the shading in the painting, as they don’t explain the fall of light on folds very clearly, but perhaps merely gave an approximate location for the locations of light and shadow.

The artist did not make any significant changes to the underdrawn composition when he began painting, beyond tightening up loose underdrawn lines or making corrections to placement, for example, positioning the eyes more accurately in the heads. He followed the unique features that were laid out in the underdrawing, including the extreme foreshortening in the heads and the varying appearances of hands, whether broad-fingered, muscular hands or unnaturally elongated. In addition, the discontinuity of the leg of the thief on the right, which was not drawn in a straight line behind the cross but is positioned too high on the left, was repeated in the painting.

It is extremely unlikely that the artist intended his underdrawing to be apparent or even somewhat apparent through his final paint layers. The loose, sketchy lines are sometimes at odds with the final contours and were surely obscured by paint originally. The visibility of this drawing today is due to the increased translucency of the aged oil paint, and to a lesser degree, some abrasion to the painting.

Paint Layers: Study of the painting technique is hindered by condition. Due to past structural issues, there is significant damage along the two joins and scattered losses throughout the painting, associated with the horizontal grain of the panel and located in the lower portion of the panel in particular. The locations of these losses and the accompanying retouching can be easily identified in the infrared reflectogram. More difficult to judge and appreciate is the extent of abrasion to the paint layers. In some passages it is clear that modulating glazes are missing, for example, in the sky where the transitions between light clouds and dark sky are too abrupt and the brushstrokes are unusually broad, all of which would have been tempered by upper layers of paint that are now abraded. Much of the foreground appears to have suffered in a similar manner. The result is a dissonant composition, lacking some of the refinement and unity that it must have had originally. The condition of the heads varies, complicating comparison of technique both within the painting and to other works by Engebrechtsz and his workshop.

Saint Peter is a well-preserved figure and a good point of comparison. Some hallmarks of the artist’s technique can be observed here including the loose handling of the brush in the fleshtones, leaving some brushstrokes unblended and others worked wet-in-wet, and the use of a stiff brush to add wrinkles at his forehead to still wet paint, resulting in slight ridges of paint (fig. 9). The artist made effective use of nearly-pure-white highlights at the tip of his nose and his collarbone; this paint has some body and enlivens the structure of his face and neck.

The other figures are more compromised by condition, mostly consisting of abrasion to upper paint layers, resulting in their quite varied appearances. While some of the features noted above can be seen occasionally, including free handling of relatively thick paint and somewhat visible brushstrokes, it is difficult to judge whether all were truly painted by the same hand. For example, the unusually ruddy coloration of the male donor stands out from the others, but possibly because the modulating glazes are now abraded. Some aspects of the paint handling in his face are comparable to those noted elsewhere, for example, the scraping away of paint in the male donor’s forehead is similar to the stiff brush used in Saint Peter’s forehead, and the reddish-brown contour lines are present in many figures. Yet it is possible that the donors were painted by a different hand, but following a similar manner. The significant abrasion and paint losses inhibit true comparisons.

The very bright and flat, almost masklike face of Saint Margaret also appears rather different from the more dramatically modeled faces of the other figures, with their broader tonal ranges (fig. 10). The even distribution of white in her face can be seen in the x-radiograph as well (fig. 8), which reveals an even radio-opacity across her face. On close examination, much of the paint handling seems similar; for example, comparison with the Virgin reveals a nearly identical placement of the highlights on the tips of the nose and the lips, and the definition of the under-eye area by adding nearly-white or pale pink strokes at the top of the cheek and lower lid. The brightness of her face could be explained by her position in the scene: as she is turned to the light, her face should be more brightly and evenly lit than the Virgin and the other figures. Yet still, some glazes that would have better shaded the planes of her face are missing. The increased opacity in her face could be due to an early reworking. A second position of her chin is apparent as a pentiment, as well as a shift to the contour of her forehead and upper cheek in the x-radiograph, revealing that some re-positioning did occur but the extent of possible repainting is not clear. The final painting of her face is well integrated into the composition and the handling is comparable to that noted elsewhere, suggesting that on balance, any reworking is likely to have occurred during the course of painting.

In addition to the condition issues noted above, the paint has also become more translucent with age, particularly evident in the fleshtones. The Virgin’s blue robe, likely containing azurite, has darkened considerably and most of the definition of the folds is no longer clear. Traces of faded red lake are present in Saint Peter’s robe, which is now a pale bluish grey but may have been a pale mauve originally.

Sophie Scully 2023

[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, report dated May 26, 2012. The report can be found in the files of the Department of Paintings Conservation. “The youngest heartwood ring was formed out in the year 1490. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1499, more plausible is a felling date between 1503..1505….1509+x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1501 upwards. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and 2 years for seasoning, a creation is plausible from 1507 upwards.”
[2] Observations about the panel were made by Alan Miller, Conservator, and Kristin Holder, Research Scholar, Department of Paintings Conservation.
[3] Infrared reflectography was acquired using a Hamamatsu InGaAs camera with sensitivity in the near infrared region from 950 nm to 1700 nm, 2003 by Alison Gilchrest.

Inscription: Inscribed (on cross): -I-N-R-I-

Mme d'Oliveira, Florence (until 1887)

Brooklyn Museum. "Take Care," January 1–February 28, 1954, no catalogue.

Hartford, Conn. Wadsworth Atheneum. "Take Care," March 10–April 25, 1954, no catalogue.

West Palm Beach, Fla. Norton Gallery and School of Art. "Take Care," December 1–31, 1954, no catalogue.

Coral Gables, Fla. Lowe Gallery. "Take Care," January 1–31, 1955, no catalogue.

Columbia, S.C. Columbia Museum of Art. "Take Care," February 1–28, 1955, no catalogue.

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. 93.

Leiden. Museum De Lakenhal. "Lucas van Leyden en de Renaissance," March 20–June 26, 2011, no. 10.

Alban Head. Letter to Roger Fry. March 21, 1906, says it is "obviously the school of Leyden" noting that it shows the influence of Engebrechtsz's 1508 "Crucifixion" [now Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal, Leyden] and that the painter may also have seen the Isenheim altarpiece.

Georges Hulin de Loo. Letter [to Roger Fry?]. July 30, 1906, agrees with the attribution to Cornelis Engebreschtsz.

Martin Conway. The Van Eycks and Their Followers. London, 1921, p. 453–54, attributes the panel to Engebrechtsz; believes the Saint Margaret here is drawn from the same model as a woman in the artist's "Christ in the House of Simon," [Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam].

Friedrich Winkler. Die altniederländische Malerei: Die Malerei in Belgien und Holland von 1400–1600. Berlin, 1924, p. 226, notes a relation to Gerard David's "Crucifixion" in Genoa [Palazzo Bianco].

Paul Wescher. "Zur chronologie der gemälde des Cornelius Engelbrechtsen." Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 58 (1924), pp. 97, 100, ill., considers it the latest of Engebrechtsz's surviving works.

Franz Dülberg. Niederländische Malerei der Spätgotik und Renaissance. Potsdam, 1929, p. 166, mentions it as an example of Engebrechtsz's late style.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 10, Lucas van Leyden und andere Holländische Meister seiner Zeit. Berlin, 1932, pp. 68, 131, no. 90, pl. 51, dates it around 1520, about the same time as the altarpiece of the "Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes" [now Gemäldegalerie, Berlin]; calls it a "hasty and cursory sketch".

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 125–26, ill., note that the "the breadth of style and the skill displayed in sustaining the effect of agitation" in this painting indicate that it is a late work dating between 1520 and 1530.

Ernest Lotthé. La pensée chrétienne dans la peinture flamande et hollandaise. Lille, 1947, vol. 2, pp. 224, 340, pl. 169b.

G. J. Hoogewerff. De noord-nederlandsche schilderkunst. Vol. 3, The Hague, 1947, pp. 199–201, judging from a photograph, suggests that it was started by Engebrechtsz and worked on by Aert Claez. and another assistant.

G. J. Hoogewerff. De noord-nederlandsche schilderkunst. Vol. 5, The Hague, 1947, p. 132, no. 27, lists it with the works of Engebrechtsz.

E. Pelinck. "Cornelius Engebrechtsz: Die herkomst van zijn kunst." Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek (1949), p. 62, mentions it among the artist's late work.

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 34.

Colin Eisler. "Erik Larsen, Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York, 1960." Art Bulletin 46 (March 1964), p. 104.

Charles D. Cuttler. Northern Painting from Pucelle to Bruegel. New York, 1968, p. 441, fig. 598.

Gert von der Osten and Horst Vey. Painting and Sculpture in Germany and the Netherlands 1500 to 1600. Baltimore, 1969, p. 166, describe it as an early Mannerist picture showing some southern influence.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 10, Lucas van Leyden and other Dutch Masters of his Time. New York, 1973, pp. 41, 79, no. 90, pl. 72.

Elisabeth Heller. Das altniederländische Stifterbild. PhD diss., Universität München. Munich, 1976, p. 187, no. 99.

Walter S. Gibson. The Paintings of Cornelis Engebrechtsz. PhD diss., Harvard University. New York, 1977, pp. 151–53, 160, 250, fig. 39, places it among Engebreschtsz's latest works, at about the same time as the Berlin "Miracle of Loaves and Fishes"; suggests a fifteenth-century source for the Christ and his two mourners noting that the figures come close to several engravings by the Master with the Banderolles.

Howard Hibbard. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1980, p. 205, fig. 366.

Larry Silver. "Early Northern European Paintings." Bulletin of the Saint Louis Art Museum, n.s., 16 (Summer 1982), p. 18, mentions it in connection with the central panel of a "Tryptych of the Passion" by an anonymous Antwerp painter [St. Louis Art Museum].

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 267, ill.

Véronique Sintobin in 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. 352–53, no. 93, ill. (color) , dates it about 1525–27.

Old Master & British Paintings. Sotheby's, London. April 29, 2015, p. 89, under no. 502, assigns it to Engebrechtsz's workshop and relates the figure of Christ to that in a "Deposition" (no. 502; oil on wood, 18 1/4 x 12 5/8 in.).

Caroline Elam. Roger Fry and Italian Art. London, 2019, pp. 54, 67 n. 135, pp. 105, 111 n. 189.