The Lamentation

The Artist: The Master of the Virgo inter Virgines (Virgin among Virgins) is the eponymous designation for a group of North Netherlandish paintings from the last quarter of the fifteenth century. In his review of the monumental Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges in 1902 (Exhibition of Flemish Primitives in Bruges), Max J. Friedländer grouped several works by an anonymous master, who was, in his view, exemplary of the North Netherlandish style in the period between Geertgen tot Sint Jans and Cornelis Engebrechtsz.[1] In the following studies in 1906 and 1910, the German connoisseur expanded the body of works under the “Master of the Virgo inter Virgines,” adopting the name after the panel in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (see fig. 1 above). The choice of the namesake panel was not necessarily because it exemplified the master’s style, but rather was due to its accessibility to the public at that time.[2]

In the fifth volume of his magisterial Altniederländische Malerei (Early Netherlandish Painting) published in 1927, Friedländer established the oeuvre of the unnamed painter, consisting of twenty works, all of which are neither signed nor dated.[3] According to him, a particular mark of the Virgo Master can be found in the expressions of grief and mourning, especially in representations from the Passion. Friedländer chose the Lamentation in Liverpool (Walker Art Gallery; fig. 2) as the most characteristic work of his style among those attributed to the Virgo Master. The oeuvre established by Friedländer, who was inevitably reliant on his personal memory and black and white photos, still remains relatively unquestioned, even though he himself stated that any assemblage based on stylistic criticism was tentative and almost instinctive.[4] Indeed, one can readily admit a variety of different hands among the works attributed to the Virgo Master, which urges us to reconsider the century-old connoisseurial attributions.

In the 1927 study, Friedländer located the Virgo Master in Delft, supposing his involvement in woodcut illustrations for incunabula published by Jacob van der Meer and Christiaan Snellaert in the city of Holland between 1483 and 1498.[5] This is also purely based on stylistic affinities with the painted works of the Virgo Master and thus needs further proof. Some scholars have tried to support this theory, arguing that the eponymous panel in Amsterdam was originally for the Koningsveld Convent near Delft.[6] Nevertheless, the connection of the Amsterdam panel and the now-destroyed convent is based only on general iconographic features, as Margreet Wolters pointed out.[7] Moreover, the woodcut illustrations or the painting for the Delft commissioners could have been made by an artist who was based outside the city. Therefore, Albert Châtelet’s identification of the Virgo Master with Dirc Jansz, who is documented as a painter in archival records at Delft between 1474 and 1495, seems to be rather optimistic.[8] The artistic environment in Delft a century and a half ago before Johannes Vermeer still remains obscure to us.[9] However, the Virgo Master’s North-Netherlandish origin is still likely because of his compositional idiom, which depicts multiple scenes or figural groups in a layered pictorial space in one painting, echoing his contemporaneous painters in Holland such as Geertgen tot Sint Jans. Nevertheless, at this point, it is difficult to say where the master was active or to establish his artistic origin.

Peter Klein, together with Claudia Unger, who further expanded the oeuvre, has carried out dendrochronological analysis of a substantial number of panels from the group.[10] The examinations have shown that the attributed works were certainly all made after about 1460, which does not contradict the accepted date of the Virgo Master’s activities in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Based on these results, Claudia Unger and Jeroen Giltaji respectively attempted to place the attributed works chronologically in line with Friedländer.[11] It should be noted that dendrochronological results offer only the terminus post quem of a painting, and it is not uncommon to find a gap of several decades between the felling date of a board and actual execution of the painting. Therefore, those results would hardly contribute to the detection of precise execution dates, let alone the Virgo Master’s stylistic development.

The Painting and the Original Ensemble: Although not recounted in the Gospels, the Lamentation, the event between the Deposition and the Entombment in the Passion of Christ, became a popular subject in the visual arts from the fourteenth century onwards, concurrently with the emergence of new types of personal devotions such as the Devotio Moderna (Modern Devotion). The lifeless body of Christ rests on the lap of the Virgin, surrounded by John the Evangelist and the Three Marys—Mary Magdalen, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Salome. Tears well up in the eyes of these tightly arranged figures, expressing their deep grief over the death of the Son of God and thereby inviting the empathic response of the viewer. While raising her two hands in acknowledgment of the event, the Virgin diverts her attention to the tender support of Christ’s left arm and wounded hand by one of the Marys. The side wound at Jesus’s chest is barely visible, due to significant abrasion of the red paint. The stigmata on the hands are clearly marked, whereas no trace of wounds on the feet remains (see Technical Notes). In the background on the right, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and a servant carry the body of Christ to the sepulchre, the event following the Lamentation in the Passion narrative. The Met Lamentation has suffered abrasion in the sky, in the trees, and in the small figures in the background. Discolored retouching in the sky has resulted in the yellowish patches in the upper part of the painting (see Technical Notes).

Among the works attributed to the Virgo Master, it has been suggested that another panel originally formed part of an ensemble with The Met Lamentation.[12] This is the Resurrection, formerly in the Jacques Goudstikker Collection in Amsterdam and now in a private collection (fig. 3).[13] The Resurrection still preserves its original dimensions with its unpainted wood margins on all sides (88 x 51 cm).[14] Examination of The Met Lamentation under the microscope suggests that the black paint around the perimeter is modern and covers original unpainted wood margins and barbe, indicating that the original dimensions of The Met’s Lamentation are preserved as well (88.6 x 51.4 cm [34 7/8 x 20 1/4 in.]; see Technical Notes). Therefore, both panels have remained identical in size since their execution. This, as well as the fact that the two panels represent the consecutive events from the Passion of Christ, suggests that they once belonged together in the same ensemble. This can be confirmed further by the fact that the Three Marys in the background of the Resurrection are shown in the same attire as in The Met Lamentation.

These correspondences between the Lamentation and the Resurrection, in turn, exclude from the supposed lost ensemble the Crucifixion in the Chrysler Museum of Art (Norfolk, Virginia; fig. 4), which has often been considered to have been part of it.[15] Although the Crucifixion is similar in its dimensions to the other two panels (84.5 x 51.4 cm [33 1/4 x 20 1/4 in.]),[16] it shows only two Marys in dissimilar dresses. More importantly, the scale difference of the figures in the Chrysler Museum panel argues against its being part of the same narrative cycle with the Lamentation and Resurrection.

The reverse of The Met’s Lamentation was planed down and cradled at some point before entering The Met’s collection in 1926 (see Technical Notes), while the back of the Resurrection shows the heavily damaged grisaille image of Saint Clement.[17] The latter suggests that The Met panel also had a grisaille image and formed a wing of a large triptych or polyptych originally, as in the Salzburg Altarpiece attributed to the Virgo Master (Salzburg Museum).[18] Considering the Lamentation and the Resurrection as side panels, two types of original format are conceivable. The first would have the Lamentation as the left wing and the Resurrection as the right, flanking a central panel or sculpture showing the Harrowing of Hell or the Entombment, the only events that would chronologically fit between the Bearing of the Body of Christ to the Sepulchre and the Three Marys visiting the Tomb in the backgrounds of the wings. The second and more plausible reconstruction would be with the two extant panels concluding the Passion cycle on the right-hand side of a large Passion altarpiece in an inverted T-shape, the form of which may have looked similar, for example, to the Nativity polyptych in The Met’s collection that is now missing the outer left and inner right wings (fig. 5).[19] This would allow space for a Crucifixion scene in the center with a towering crucifix and same-sized figures as in The Met’s Lamentation. The central part of the lost polyptych, probably subdivided into three fields, could either be a painting or sculpture, as surviving contemporaneous Netherlandish examples show.[20] The execution of such a commission must have required the collaboration of a large workforce with numerous assistants. Nevertheless, more research would be needed to confirm such a hypothesis.

The Attribution: The Met’s Lamentation has been considered as a marginal work in the oeuvre since the “discovery” of the Virgo Master. In his definitive 1927 study, Friedländer stated that The Met’s Lamentation was “lacking in dramatic invention,” further claiming “I have no doubt that this picture stems from the same hand that painted the other scenes from the Passion, although I must admit that the types, while of the same basic form, diverge somewhat.”[21] Among the four Lamentation panels generally attributed to the Virgo Master, only The Met’s Lamentation lacks the characteristic chiaroscuro of the faces and shows no clouds in the sky.[22] The figures, delineated in a more draftsman-like manner, certainly eliminate The Met’s panel from the central works in the oeuvre. Therefore, a few scholars have excluded it, together with the above-mentioned Goudstikker Resurrection, from the autograph works by the Virgo Master himself. Accordingly, the attribution of The Met's panel was altered from the master himself to the current attribution of “a follower” by Mary Sprinson de Jesús in 1982.[23] Dendrochronology demonstrates that the slightly more recent one of the two boards used as the support of The Met Lamentation was probably felled in 1475, meaning that 1477 would be the earliest possible date of execution with a minimum of two years of seasoning (see Technical Notes).[24] This date does not contradict the probable dates of the other works attributed to the Virgo Master.[25]

In the Virgo Master’s oeuvre, the eponymous panel in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, is stylistically one of the closest to The Met’s Lamentation. The physiognomy in the eponymous panel looks akin to The Met’s panel, with the heavy upper eyelids, wrinkles on the neck, small mouths, double chin, and lacking the trademark chiaroscuro on the faces. The blue sky is painted with no clouds here, as in The Met’s Lamentation. Nevertheless, infrared reflectography (IRR) shows entirely different underdrawing styles between the eponymous panel and The Met’s Lamentation, despite the similar appearance on the paint surfaces.[26] Infrared reflectography (IRR) is most often used to reveal the underdrawing beneath the paint layers, imaging carbon-containing materials that were frequently used to make preparatory drawings on top of the white ground. The underdrawing of The Met’s panel was done in a liquid medium, seemingly with a brush (see Technical Notes; fig. 6), whereas the eponymous panel is underdrawn with a stiff brush, perhaps even a quill (fig. 7).[27] It is noteworthy that the Amsterdam panel shows almost no trace of underdrawing on the faces of the figures, making a striking contrast to the bold, detailed lines for the faces and costumes in The Met’s Lamentation. This dissimilarity in the underdrawing styles is most conspicuous in the draperies. The eponymous panel shows a more controlled, systematic hatching and cross-hatching, differing from the rather spontaneous manner in The Met’s Lamentation. Also, detailed observations of the paint surfaces reveal that the seemingly similar color palette of the Rijksmuseum painting is the result of a very different composition of the flesh tones. For example, the pinkish-red contouring of hands in the eponymous panel cannot be seen in The Met’s Lamentation at all (fig. 8). These outcomes of technical investigations leads to the conclusion that The Met’s Lamentation was executed by a completely different person from the master of the eponymous panel in Amsterdam. On the other hand, the underdrawing style of the Resurrection appears quite similar to The Met’s panel (fig. 9),[28] which supports the theory that the two panels originally formed part of the same ensemble.

The fundamental problem with the attribution lies in the anonymity of the Virgo Master. Among the more than twenty works generally attributed to the painter, several different styles are immediately observed. The stylistic heterogeneity within the accepted oeuvre makes it difficult to establish the master’s characteristic pictorial idioms. That is, it is not certain whether the eponymous panel, or even the Liverpool Lamentation that was for Friedländer representative of the master’s style, can be regarded as an autograph work by the Virgo Master himself. Was the Virgo Master one person who was leading a successful workshop with several assistants? Or rather, are we dealing with a group of individual painters who were active in the same region or artistic school? Further technical studies are essential to advance these discussions about attribution of the works attributed to the Virgo Master. Until a substantial corpus of painting techniques and underdrawing styles are established within the group of works, it is hard to positively designate to the painter of The Met’s Lamentation one specific authorship category such as “the master,” “the workshop,” or “a follower.” The phantom-like presence of the Virgo Master epitomizes attribution problems in early Netherlandish paintings, which are in most cases neither signed nor dated.

Sumihiro Oki 2021

[1] Friedländer 1903. p. 168.
[2] Friedländer 1906, p. 39; Friedländer 1910, p. 64, Anm. 2.
[3] See Friedländer 1969, pp. 38–44, 79–81, 90, 92–93.
[4] Friedländer 1969, p. 41.
[5] Friedländer 1969, pp. 43–44.
[6] Among recent studies, see Unger 2004, p. 163; Paula. L. Pumplin. “The Communion of the Saints. The Master of the Virgo inter Virgines' Virgin and Child with Saints Catherine, Cecilia, Barbara and Ursula,” Rijksmuseum Bulletin 58 (2010), pp. 308–9.
[7] Margreet Wolters, “Master of the Virgo inter Virgines, The Virgin and Child with Sts Catherine, Cecilia, Barbara and Ursula, Northern Netherlands, c. 1495–c. 1500,” in J.P. Filedt Kok (ed.), Early Netherlandish Paintings, online coll. cat. Amsterdam, 2010: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.9034 (accessed June 11, 2021).
[8] Albert Châtelet, “Early Dutch Painting: Thirty Years On,” Oud Holland 123 (2010), p. 326.
[9] Hugo van der Velden, Review of Lammertse and Giltaij 2008, Oud Holland 123 (2010), pp. 311–12.
[10] Unger 2004, pp. 265–70.
[11] Schilderkunst van de late Middeleeuwen: Vroege Hollanders. Eds. Friso Lammertse and Jeroen Giltaij. Exh. cat., Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam 2008, pp. 252–85.
[12] Generally accepted since Friedländer 1937.
[13] For the latest entry on the Resurrection, see Sutton 2008.
[14] Amsterdam 1958, p. 68; Sutton 2008, p. 88.
[15] For example, see Boon 1963, p. 22; Châtelet 1981, pp. 233–34; De Vrij 1999, p. 34; Unger 2004, pp. 222–35.
[16] Harrison 1991.
[17] Friedländer 1969, p. 90, pl. III; Sutton 2008.
[18] On the Salzburg Altarpiece, see Margreet Wolters and Jeroen Giltaij, “Der Marie-Altar des Meisters der Virgo inter Virgines im Salzburg Museum,” Ars Sacra. Jahresschrift des Salzburg Museum 53 (2010), pp. 19–35.
[19] Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden, The Nativity, mid-15th century (The Met, 49.109).
[20] See Lynn F. Jacobs, Early Netherlandish Carved Altarpieces, 1380–1550. Medieval Tastes and Mass Marketing, Cambridge 1998, chapter 1.
[21] Friedländer 1969, p. 41.
[22] The other three panels are in the following collections: Wandtapijten Museum, Edingen; Museo del Prado, Madrid; Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool.
[23] In the conservation report by Wedekind, dated December 1964, the painting is still attributed to the master himself (Conservation file). Guy Bauman’s correspondence with Carl Strehlke, dated September 3, 1986, already mentions that the Lamentation is attributed to “a follower” (Departmental archive file), following research done by Mary Spinson de Jesús in 1982.
[24] Dendrochronological report by Peter Klein, dated July 11, 2016 (Conservation file).
[25] Unger 2004, pp. 265–70.
[26] The author is grateful to Gwen Tauber and Susan Smelt of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam for sharing their unpublished high-resolution photos and condition reports of the eponymous panel (SK-A-501) and the Goudstikker Resurrection.
[27] Wolters 2010 (see n. 7 above).
[28] Comparison made based on unpublished IRR photos of the Resurrection. The author is grateful to Dr. Margreet Wolters of the RKD for sharing their unpublished IRR photos of the eponymous panel. Infrared reflectography was performed with a Hamamatsu C 2400-07 equipped with a N2606 IR vidicon, a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 1:2.8/55 mm lens, a Heliopan RG 850 (or RG 1000) filter, with a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor (625 lines). Digitized documentation is done with a Meteor RCB framegrabber, 768 x 574 pixels, colorvision toolkit (Visualbasic). The IRR-assembly/assemblies reproduced here was/were made with PanaVue ImageAssembler and Adobe Photoshop.

Support: The support was constructed from two oak boards, with the grain oriented vertically. Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1477, with a more plausible date of 1483 upwards.[1] The wood originated in the Baltic/Polish region. At some point before entering The Met’s collection, the panel was thinned to 0.4 cm (3/16 inch) and cradled.

The original dimensions seem to be nearly preserved. There is black painted border, about 1 cm wide, around the perimeter of the painting, which dates to a twentieth century restoration and lies over what appear to be the original unpainted wood margins. It is difficult to identify the original edges of the painted surface with certainty as this black paint overlaps the edges slightly, obscuring what appear to be traces of a barbe. During previous treatments, the painted composition was extended out over the unpainted wood margins (possibly related to a change in framing); the overpaint was subsequently removed, and the edges were covered in the black paint present today.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a white ground. Documentation with infrared reflectography revealed an extensive underdrawing executed using what appears to be a liquid medium and a brush[2] (see fig. 6 above). The artist has underdrawn all major contours of the figures and the background in a very free manner, occasionally varying his handling. He laid out facial features with only a few lines, but the boldness of the lines and often unnaturally steep angles give the features exaggerated expressions in the underdrawing, which were ultimately made softer and more realistic in the painting. The artist paid attention to the planes of Christ’s face, and to a lesser extent John, setting off cheekbones and brows with multiple, parallel, curving strokes. He used similar groups of three or more roughly parallel strokes to indicate the hollows of Christ’s sternum and ribs, as well as very short curved lines for the muscles of his legs. He also established the system of lighting in the drapery and occasionally cast shadows on the ground. The passages of hatching and cross-hatching that indicate zones of shadow are generally neatly done and evenly spaced, although they sometimes vary, as in Mary Magdalene’s robe, perhaps betraying some uncertainty in the planning stage or a varying level of care.

When the infrared reflectogram is examined alongside the painting, it becomes apparent that the painting departs from the underdrawing in some significant ways, in addition to the minor adjustments that were simply part of the creative process. John’s robe was underdrawn slightly opened at the front, with the fabric gathered above his clasped hands and with an open collar, details that were omitted in the painting. The headdress of the standing Mary at center included a cloth that draped over its sides and fell behind her back on either side of her head in the underdrawing. Oddly, this cloth, painted to resemble a translucent fabric, was included on the top of her headdress only. The jewels on her headdress were also underdrawn as if they should be somewhat evident through the translucent cloth, however, only one red brushstroke was made to this end. The translucent veil of the standing Mary at right was also altered from underdrawing to painting. The underdrawing depicts a few delicate folds in the cloth, while the final painted version has been simplified. A seemingly gauzy cloth meeting at her bodice was underdrawn but altered in the paint to a simple, straight neckline. On the other hand, Mary Magdalen’s translucent veil does follow the underdrawn composition faithfully. Compositional changes in the background include the alteration of the rock formations and the change at the entry to the tomb from an arch to a rectangle.

In addition to these clear alterations to the underdrawn composition, several slight adjustments can also be observed, mainly where the artist was refining his contours as he painted. The largest of these corrections lies in John’s smallest toe, which was painted shorter than the excessively long underdrawn toe. In general, the folds in the drapery seem sharper and more angular in the underdrawing compared to the more sinuous folds in the painting. In addition, the facial features were often slightly adjusted or re-positioned: see, for example, how the Virgin’s left eye was underdrawn at a steeper angle, or John’s eyebrows. The different appearance of the faces in the underdrawing and the painting could be attributed to the boldness of the line used for the underdrawing, rather than a different conception of how the faces were to be depicted, or the work of a different hand.

The underdrawing is visible in normal light in some passages, particularly where the painted composition did not exactly follow the underdrawing. This phenomenon is related to the increased translucency of the oil paints with age; the underdrawing would not have been evident originally.

Paint Layers: Offset by the rich and colorful clothing, the composed yet deeply grief-stricken expressions of the anguished figures around the dead Christ are evident even at a distance, due in part to the artist’s technical choices. The painter used lead white to great effect, blending nearly pure white highlights into an otherwise limited palette in the fleshtones that underscores their pallor and renders their red-rimmed eyes palpable even from a distance. He added bold details that emphasize their expressions, such as simple and very dark irises and long, black eyelashes, which appear almost caricature-like on close examination but serve to emphasize the directions of the gazes (fig. 10). And he included several teardrops, with pure white reflections that stand out against the pale skin, as well as bright red paint at their slightly parted mouths (fig. 11). The artist also boldly contrasted white and shadow in their hands, to emphasize wrinkles and gestures.

The artist does not appear to have made many changes during the course of painting; the repositioning of the Virgin’s thumb was the only tiny adjustment observed.

The painting suffers from some significant condition issues, but these are generally restricted to specific areas of the composition. There are some considerable losses along the joins and splits in the panel, most of which are integrated with retouching but remain readily identifiable in the infrared reflectogram and x-radiograph (fig. 12). The most significant lie along the central join; these intersect the proper right eye of the standing Mary at center, her brocade, and Christ’s left elbow and loincloth. Otherwise, losses are fairly minor. The background has been abraded to varying degrees, which is also somewhat integrated with retouching, but the degree of damage is less easily identifiable in technical images. The small figures in the background in front of the tomb are very abraded, as are the small trees to the left of the tomb. The sky appears to be quite rubbed, while remnants of a dark coating as well as some older retouching also remain, further disrupting its appearance and resulting in the yellowish patches evident across the sky. The rock formations and trees to the left of the panel are only slightly abraded. The ridges between the two standing Marys are very damaged; these may have once eased the recession into the most distant blue hills.

On the other hand, the figures are in fair condition, in general. The finer details, executed in black and brown paint, are slightly rubbed and the black dress of the standing woman at right is also worn, but otherwise their fleshtones and costumes are mostly well-preserved. There does appear to have been some fading of red lakes; the Virgin’s dress, beneath her deep blue robe, would have been purple originally. The robes of John and Mary Magdalen would have been bolder reds. The greens in the background have discolored to brown to varying degrees, as is characteristic of copper-containing greens.

Sophie Scully 2021

[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, November 7, 2016. The report can be found in the files of the Department of Paintings Conservation. The youngest heartwood ring was formed out in the year 1466. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1475, more plausible is a felling date between 1479..1481…1485 + x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1477 upward. 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 1483 upward.
[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, August 2021.

Ulrich Thieme, Leipzig (by 1902–after 1910; acquired in Spain); [Paul Bottenwieser, Berlin, until 1926]

Cambridge, Mass. Fogg Art Museum. "Eleven Masterpieces of Early Flemish Painting," February 7–March 20, 1948, no catalogue.

Kunsthistorische Gesellschaft für photographische Publikationen 7 (1901), pl. 24 [see Ref. Friedländer 1910].

Max J. Friedländer. "Die Brügger Leihausstellung von 1902." Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 26 (1903), p. 168, mentions this painting with a group of pictures that are Dutch in character and ascribes them to an artist standing between Geertgen and Engebrechtsz.

Emile Durand-Gréville. "Les primitifs flamands a l'exposition de Guildhall." Les arts anciens de flandre 2 (1906–7), p. 55, ill. opp. p. 62.

Max J. Friedländer. "Der Meister der Virgo inter Virgines." Jahrbuch der königlich Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen 31 (1910), p. 66, no. 14, lists it with works by this artist, whom he calls the Master of the Virgo inter Virgines after the painting of this subject in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Willy Burger. Die Malerei in den Niederlanden 1400–1550. Munich, 1925, p. 93, pl. 134, mentions it as having the same Geertgen–like spirit as the painting in the Rijksmuseum.

Max J. Friedländer. Letter. 1925, states that it was the first picture he could definitely ascribe to the painter of the "Virgin and Child" in the Rijkmuseum, adding that Thieme acquired it in Spain.

Harry B. Wehle. "The Master of the Virgin among the Virgins." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 21 (March 1926), pp. 78–80, ill.

"Notes on Current Art." International Studio 91 (May 1926), p. 83, ill.

"États-Unis: Musées et expositions." Le bulletin de l'art ancien et moderne (May 1926), pp. 172–73, ill.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 5, Geertgen van Haarlem und Hieronymus Bosch. Berlin, 1927, pp. 71–72, 141, no. 59, pl. 39, places our panel on the "periphery" of the artist's work, noting that it is lacking in dramatic invention and that the types diverge somewhat from those in other Passion scenes ascribed to the Master, such as the Lamentation in the Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool.

Franz Dülberg. Niederländische Malerei der Spätgotik und Renaissance. Potsdam, 1929, p. 105, calls it less vigorous than the Liverpool Lamentation.

Chandler Rathfon Post. A History of Spanish Painting. Vol. 4, The Hispano-Flemish Style in Northwestern Spain. Cambridge, Mass., 1933, part 1, p. 28, notes that this is the only picture by the Master of the Virgin among Virgins that Friedländer lists as having once been in Spain.

Hans Tietze. Meisterwerke europäischer Malerei in Amerika. Vienna, 1935, p. 334, pl. 134 [English ed., "Masterpieces of European Painting in America," New York, 1939, p. 318, pl. 134].

Ernst Günter Troche. Niederländische Malerei. Berlin, 1935, p. 31.

Max J. Friedländer. Die altniederländische Malerei. Vol. 14, Pieter Bruegel und Nachträge zu den früheren Bänden. Leiden, 1937, p. 98, notes that a painting of the Resurrection on the art market in Amsterdam [formerly Goudstikker collection, now Rijkmuseum] is from the same altarpiece as our Lamentation.

G. J. Hoogewerff. De noord-nederlandsche schilderkunst. Vol. 2, The Hague, 1937, pp. 270–72, ascribes it to a close follower of the Master of the Virgin among Virgins, adding that the Resurrection now in the Rijksmuseum "without doubt" came from the same altarpiece and was painted by the same artist.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 82–84, ill., date it probably about 1490, adding that Friedländer is inclined to assign it to a late phase of the Master's development; note that in the MMA panel the artist has "exagerrated his peculiarities"; believe a Resurrection with the same dimensions (art market, New York [now Rijksmuseum]) must originally have belonged to the same altarpiece.

Julius S. Held. "Book Reviews: Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta M. Salinger . . ., 1947." Art Bulletin 31 (June 1949), pp. 141–42, thinks it should be eliminated from the oeuvre of the Master of the Virgin among Virgins and notes ways in which it diverges from his characteristic style.

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 65.

Middeleeuwse kunst der noordelijke Nederlanden. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum. [Amsterdam], [1958], p. 71, catalogues a Crucifixion on the Paris art market (no. 59, now in the Chrysler Museum, Norfolk, Virginia) as a work by the Master of the Virgin among Virgins and notes that although the dimensions of this picture are close to those of our Lamentation and the Resurrection in Amsterdam, the difference in scale makes it unlikely that it belonged to the same altarpiece.

Erik Larsen. Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York. Utrecht, 1960, pp. 96, 132, fig. 36.

R. H. Wilenski. Flemish Painters, 1430–1830. New York, 1960, vol. 1, pp. 63, 66, 74–77; vol. 2, pl. 125, as the work of two different artists.

K. G. Boon. De Meester van de Virgo inter Virgines. Rotterdam, 1963, pp. 22, 35 n. 24, suggests our panel formed an altarpiece with the Rijksmuseum panel and a Crucifixion on the Paris art market [now Chrysler Museum, Norfolk, Virginia]; judging from his style, believes the artist was active in Delft.

Colin Eisler. "Erik Larsen, Les primitifs flamands au Musée Metropolitain de New York, 1960." Art Bulletin 46 (March 1964), p. 103, suggests that a Deposition in the Fogg Museum, Boston, and a "subject which seems to represent the meeting of the Magi" in the Johnson Collection, Philadelphia, may belong to the same altarpiece as our panel and the one in Amsterdam.

Juan Antonio Gaya Nuño. Pintura Europea Perdida por España de Van Eyck a Tiépolo. Madrid, 1964, p. 27 n. 31, pl. 20.

Max J. Friedländer et al. Early Netherlandish Painting. Vol. 5, Geertgen tot Sint Jans and Jerome Bosch. New York, 1969, pp. 41, 80, 90, 92, 102 n. 44, no. 59, pl. 38, Lemmens notes that the Crucifixion now in the Chrysler Museum may be from the same complex as our panel and the Resurrection in Amsterdam.

Albert Châtelet. Early Dutch Painting: Painting in the Northern Netherlands in the Fifteenth Century. English ed. [French ed. 1980]. New York, 1981, pp. 233–34, ill., catalogues this panel, the [Norfolk] Crucifixion and the Amsterdam Resurrection as belonging to a triptych of the Passion whose center consisted of two equal–sized panels; assumes that it is the left wing that is missing, since only the Resurrection, which he takes to be the right wing, has a grisaille saint on the reverse; ascribes all three panels to the Master of the Virgin among Virgins, and erroneously states that they were published as part of the same altarpiece in the Amsterdam exhibition of 1958 .

Elisa Bermejo. La Pintura de los primitivos flamencos en España. Vol. 2, Madrid, 1982, p. 97.

Jefferson C. Harrison. The Chrysler Museum Handbook of the European and American Collections: Selected Paintings, Sculpture, and Drawings. Norfolk, Va., 1991, p. 6.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 256, ill.

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, p. 405, ill., as by a follower of the Master of the Virgin among Virgins, active late 15th century.

Marc Rudolf de Vrij. De Meester van de Virgo inter Virgines. Amsterdam, 1999, pp. 34, 47 n. 51, omits it from the Master's oeuvre and calls it part of an altarpiece that also includes the Amsterdam and Norfolk panels.

Claudia Unger. Die Tafelgemälde des Meisters der Virgo inter Virgines: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des Kunstgebietes der nördlichen Niederlande im 15. Jahrhundert. PhD diss., Freien Universität Berlin. Berlin, 2004, pp. 227–30, no. 4.4.2, fig. 25.

This panel appears to have belonged to the same altarpiece as a Resurrection (88 x 51 cm) in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, with a damaged grisaille saint on the reverse. Lemmens and Châtelet (see Friedländer and Lemmens 1969 and Châtelet 1981) suggest that a Crucifixion (85 x 52 cm) now in the Chrysler Museum, Norfolk, was part of the same ensemble. Although this association is less convincing, since the scale of the figures and style of the Norfolk painting are rather different from The Met and Amsterdam panels, it is possible that the altarpiece was a cooperative effort by two members of the Master's workshop.

Colin Eisler (1964) has also suggested that a panel of the Deposition in the Fogg Museum, Cambridge (81 x 46 cm), and one representing the meeting of the magi in the Johnson Collection, Philadelphia Museum of Art (76.8 x 39.7 cm) were part of the same altarpiece as our panel and the one in Amsterdam. The Philadelphia panel, however, is more reasonably considered by Friedländer ( 1969) to be the right shutter of of an Adoration of the Magi.

Modern black overpainting makes a border of about 3/8 inch all around the image, so that the visible part of the picture measures 34 x 19 1/2 inches. According to Gisela Helmkampf, the painted surface extends to the edge of the panel. The reverse of the panel is visible through cradling, and there is no sign of a grisaille saint like thhe one on the reverse of the Amsterdam Resurrection.

In a photograph of the Amsterdam panel the original bearded edges are visible on all sides.