Carved in relief and originally polychromed. The figures stand on an integrally carved, rising ground with Tremolierung carved with a curved gouge. The underside has been levelled with a chisel. Remnants of red, green, yellow, blue and black polychromy have been found.

Jaarverslag Nederlandse Rijksmusea 1973, p. 25; Jaarverslag Nederlandse Rijksmusea 1976, p. 17; K. Aben et al., ‘Conservering van de beelden van Soest’, Bulletin Centraal Laboratorium voor onderzoek van voorwerpen en kunst en wetenschap 1977, pp. 93-105

Badly worm-eaten and decayed.

…; found in the Oude Kerk, Soest, with several other objects (BK-NM-12006-1 to -19), 1905;¹¹W. Vogelsang, ‘Vondst te Soest’, Bulletin van de Nederlandschen Oudheidkundigen Bond 4 (1905), pp. 187-96, pp. 190-91; J. Kalf, ‘Een belangrijke vondst’, Het huis, oud en nieuw. Maandelijks prentenboek gewijd aan huis, inrichting, bouw- en sierkunst 3 (1905), pp. 289-301. donated by the municipality of Soest to the museum, 1907

Object number: BK-NM-12006-13-A

Restoration work in the tower of the Oude Kerk in Soest in 1905 uncovered in a bricked-up area an important treasure trove of statues, albeit in a deplorable condition.²²These objects have been donated to the Rijksmuseum in 1907, see inv. nos. BK-NM-12006-1 to -19. It is assumed that the figures were hidden there either in 1566 at the outbreak of the Iconoclasm or in December 1580, when Calvinists in the Eemland region endeavoured to destroy every last remnant of religious art.³³K. Broekhuijsen-Kruijer, ‘Het Passieretabel uit Soest’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 32 (1984), pp. 3-16, esp. p. 3.

Among the carvings were five small oak groups and a number of loose fragments that together belonged to a large Passion altarpiece. All that survived of the altar case were a few wooden consoles and lead ornaments. In all probability the altarpiece consisted of a case in the shape of an inverted T, with seven compartments for as many scenes from Christ’s Passion. The case must have been around four metres wide overall and between 155 and 180 centimetres high.⁴⁴Cf. the reconstruction by Van der Mark in M. Leeflang et al., Middeleeuwse beelden uit Utrecht: 1430-1530/Mittelalterliche Bildwerke aus Utrecht: 1430-1530, exh. cat. Utrecht (Museum Catharijneconvent)/Aachen (Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum) 2012-13, pp. 218-19 (ill.), based on K. Broekhuijsen-Kruijer, ‘Het Passieretabel uit Soest’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 32 (1984), pp. 3-16, esp. p. 11 and B. Nederveen, ‘Het passieretabel van Soest. Kanttekeningen bij een reconstructie’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 52 (2004), pp. 270-81, esp. p. 270. There was tracery (openwork Gothic ornament) above the altar groups. The placement of the scenes followed the chronology of the Passion story, with the Calvary, as usual, in the larger, central caisse or compartment. To the left of this scene was the Agony in the Garden (BK-NM-12006-15-C), the Flagellation (BK-NM-12006-13) and Christ Carrying the Cross (BK-NM-12006-15-B), with the Entombment (BK-NM-12006-12) and Christ’s Descent into Limbo (BK-NM-12006-14) on the right. The (unknown) seventh scene would have been a Descent from the Cross, Lamentation, Resurrection or Ascension.⁵⁵K. Broekhuijsen-Kruijer, ‘Het Passieretabel uit Soest’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 32 (1984), pp. 3-16, esp. p. 11. In view of the chronology, the Resurrection and Ascension would have been in the seventh caisse of the altar case, the other two in the fifth. No elements of either of these have been identified to date.

The altarpiece must originally have been exceptionally fine. Remnants of gold leaf and brocade patterns indicate that the whole thing was elaborately decorated, and the carefully worked details, lively expressions and interaction between the figures attest to a very high standard of artistry. Countless style characteristics – such as the conspicuous lower eyelids of all the figures, the realism in their faces, the generally quite tight garments with few folds and the anecdotal nature of the scenes – are strong indications that the altar was created in the last quarter of the fifteenth century in the sculpture centre of Utrecht, not far from Soest.

Broekhuijsen-Kruijer gave the anonymous maker of the altar the provisional name of Master of the Soest Altarpiece. According to Leeuwenberg, two apostle figures that were also found in the church (BK-NM-12006-6 and BK-NM-12006-9) were ‘in all likelihood by the same hand’. He saw similarities in ‘the eyes and the face, the rather thickset forms, and the whole character’.⁶⁶J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, pp. 61-62. However, the inconsistent style of the folds of the garments and the different handling of hair and beards – slightly wavy in the altar fragments as opposed to curly in the apostle statues – do not support this attribution.

As Van Binnebeke pointed out, an Ecce Homo group in Rotterdam, which he dated to around 1500 and located in Utrecht, with reservations, is stylistically akin to the Soest Altarpiece.⁷⁷Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, inv. no. N24a, see Van Binnebeke in P. van Dael et al., Hout- en steensculptuur. Beeldhouwkunst 1200-1800 in de collectie van het Museum Boijmans-van Beuningen, coll. cat. Rotterdam 1994, no. 54. The same soft-top boots, pointed shoes and rosette clasps are found in both pieces, as are the wispy hair and the variety of realistic and grotesque facial expressions. The quality of the Soest Altarpiece is superior, however.

Bieke van der Mark, 2024

This fragment is part of the Flagellation scene from the Soest Altarpiece.⁹⁹See Context for general information about this altarpiece and an analysis of the style. The lowest part of the scene is all that has survived. Christ’s feet can be seen on sloping ground in front of the whipping-post together with a significant part of his body, swathed in a loincloth. On the left stands a corpulent executioner supporting himself with one hand on his bent knee. On the right is the left shoe of a second flagellator. On the elevation behind him are the feet of a third culprit.

Although the altar group scene is set in the open air on rough ground and not in an architectural setting on a tiled floor, Nederveen discovered that the composition of the group is loosely based on a print by the Master with the Banderoles of around 1470 (fig. a).¹⁰¹⁰B. Nederveen, ‘Het passieretabel van Soest. Kanttekeningen bij een reconstructie’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 52 (2004), pp. 270-81, esp. p. 277. M. Lehrs, Geschichte und kritischer Katalog des deutschen, niederländischen und französischen Kupferstichs im XV. Jahrhundert, vol. 4, Vienna 1921, no. 33. This engraver was active in the Northern Netherlands between around 1450 and 1470. The clothes and pose of the flabby executioner on the left, in particular, are very similar. With the aid of this print Nederveen tried to make a reconstruction of the composition of the battered group. He argued that the missing figure to whom the surviving left shoe belonged must have been, as in the print, a flagellator on the point of dealing Christ a blow with the whip in his upraised left hand. In his right hand he grasps the ends of the rope with which Christ is tied to the whipping-post. Among the loose fragments of the Soest Altarpiece is a torso that Nederveen identified as this figure (fig. b).¹¹¹¹B. Nederveen, ‘Het passieretabel van Soest. Kanttekeningen bij een reconstructie’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 52 (2004), pp. 270-81, esp. p. 277. Despite the different headdress, as far as the position of his upraised left arm is concerned he indeed corresponds closely to the executioner in the print. The position of his body, however, does not accord with the direction of the left foot at the front of the altar group.

It is clear from the pair of feet on the elevation in the background – overlooked by Nederveen – that the Master of the Soest Altarpiece had added at least one figure to the well-known composition. He may have moved the flagellator with the raised arm on to the elevation. A loose fragment of a Roman soldier in a paltock may have occupied the place at the front, as Vogelsang had already suggested in his 1912 reconstruction (fig. c).¹²¹²W. Vogelsang and M. van Notten, Die Holzskulptur in den Niederlanden, vol. 2, Berlin/Utrecht 1912, plate XII, fig. 98. Two loose hands from the Soest Altarpiece, which seem to clasp a whip or a rod, probably belonged to the soldiers in this scene (fig. d and fig. e).

Bieke van der Mark, 2024

J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, no. 23c, with earlier literature; Jaarverslag Nederlandse Rijksmusea 1976, p. 17; K. Broekhuijsen-Kruijer, ‘Het Passieretabel uit Soest’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 32 (1984), pp. 3-16; P. van Dael et al., Hout- en steensculptuur. Beeldhouwkunst 1200-1800 in de collectie van het Museum Boijmans-van Beuningen, coll. cat. Rotterdam 1994, p. 85; B. Nederveen, Soest, tussen Amersfoort en Utrecht. Een studie naar de herkomst van de laatgotische sculptuur uit de Hervormde Kerk te Soest, Amsterdam 1999 (unpub. thesis University of Amsterdam), pp. 12, 93-96; J.H.M. Hilhorst and J.G.M. Hilhorst, Soest, Hees en De Birkt. Van de achtste tot de zeventiende eeuw, Hilversum 2001, pp. 239-40, 260, 278; B. Nederveen, ‘Het passieretabel van Soest. Kanttekeningen bij een reconstructie’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 52 (2004), pp. 270-81; Van der Mark in M. Leeflang et al., Middeleeuwse beelden uit Utrecht: 1430-1530/Mittelalterliche Bildwerke aus Utrecht: 1430-1530, exh. cat. Utrecht (Museum Catharijneconvent)/Aachen (Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum) 2012-13, no. 25b; J. Groenveld, ‘De Sint-Jansverering in een Sint-Vitusparochie voor 1580’, Tussen Vecht en Eem: Tijdschrift voor regionale geschiedenis 35 (2017), pp. 213-25, esp. p. 220

B. van der Mark, 2024, 'Meester van het retabel van Soest, The Flagellation, from the Soest Altarpiece, Utrecht, c. 1475 - c. 1500', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/200115811