The Good Samaritan

The support consists of five vertically grained oak planks (25.4, 14.2, 13.3, 14 and 19 cm), approx. 1 cm thick. On the reverse there are traces of saw (?) marks as well as the outlines of former horizontal braces. Dendrochronology has shown that the youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1510. The panel could have been ready for use by 1521, but a date in or after 1535 is more likely. Five holes along each edge (now filled with wood paste), as well as indentations of approx. 1 cm at the top and bottom of the back, probably relate to an older frame or frames. The panel has a white ground and is painted up to the edges. The underdrawing can occasionally be seen with the naked eye in the body of the wounded man and along the contours of the mountains in the background. Infrared reflectography reveals an elaborate underdrawing throughout the composition done in a dry medium, probably black chalk (fig. a). All the compositional elements have been outlined, and shading is often quite heavy, usually in the form of short diagonal strokes and zigzags. There are some changes in the background: the horse and rider near the pyramid were shifted in position, and two trees underdrawn above the Samaritan’s head were omitted. The Samaritan’s hand holding the bottle and the figure of the monk at lower right were added in paint only. The most significant revisions, however, occur in the figure of the wounded man (see Entry). In general, the paint was applied smoothly, although the sharp highlights on the bark of the tree trunk and leaves of background trees were applied much more thickly.

Faries 1975, pp. 161-65

Fair. There are paint losses, especially in the head of the white horse in the foreground, and discoloured vertical retouching in the body of the Samaritan. The varnish is only slightly yellowed.

…; sale, John David Chambers (†) (Salisbury) et al. [section Chambers], London (Christie’s), 12 February 1898, no. 75, as Jan van Scorel; ...; sale, Peter Arell Brown Widener (1834-1915, Philadelphia) et al. [section ‘collection d’un amateur Anglais’], Amsterdam (F. Muller), 30 June 1909, no. 61, fl. 200;¹¹Copy RKD. ...; collection Antoon Derkinderen (1859-1925), Amsterdam, as Jan van Scorel, 1913;²²Utrecht 1913, p. 90, no. 89.; his widow Johanna Henriëtte Derkinderen-Besier (1865-1944), Amsterdam;³³NHA, RBK, INV, inv. 2012. by whom bequeathed, with 177 other objects, to the museum, 1944

ObjectNumber: SK-A-3468

Credit line: J.H. Besier Bequest, Amsterdam

The painting depicts the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35), which extols the universality of compassion. As told by Christ, a traveller going to Jericho from Jerusalem was robbed and left for dead by thieves. The robbers can still be seen: they appear as tiny figures, one carrying a large sword, escaping into the trees in the middle background. Several who saw the injured man passed by, first a priest and then a Levite, portrayed here on the right as an ecclesiastic dressed in black and a monk. It was a Samaritan, whose turban would identify him here as a Turk, who was the only one who stopped to tend to the wounded man. He has dismounted before a tree with a hollow trunk, and he kneels to support the battered traveller as he pours oil and wine on his wounds. Blood trickles down the traveller’s chest, and his impending death is suggested by his blueish-grey hands and feet. The figures on the right moving from the middleground to the background establish a path from the lower right to the upper left corner, where a later episode in the biblical story is shown. The Samaritan has placed the wounded man on his own horse and is taking him to an inn where he will arrange for his care.

The focus of the painting is on the nude form of the wounded man, whose sagging body has taken a complicated pose, with a limp arm, a sharply foreshortened head and crossed legs. Hoogewerff proposed the influence of Michelangelo’s Adam from the Sistine ceiling,⁹⁹Hoogewerff IV, 1941-42, p. 224. but closer parallels for the figure can be found in Raphael’s works, the figure of Heliodorus in the Stanza fresco, The Expulsion of Heliodorus, the related figure of Ananias in the tapestry of The Death of Ananias, or a variant of both, such as the figure of Jacob in the fresco of Jacob’s Dream in the Loggia in the Vatican Palace.¹⁰¹⁰Faries in Amsterdam 1986a, pp. 236-37, no. 116; Faries in Brussels-Rome 1995, pp. 430-31, no. 253. Technical examination reveals that almost all the compositional changes in this painting are concentrated in this figure (fig. a). In the underdrawn layout, the Samaritan’s right hand was originally under the wounded man’s armpit but has been shifted in the paint stage to just above his own knee. As a result, the wounded man’s arm was lifted and the elbow greatly enlarged, as were the hands and feet. The body type of the underlying figure has entirely different proportions, with a thinner torso and legs, and attenuated hands with long, tapering fingers. Since these are stylistic traits that can be associated with Jan van Scorel, it is likely that one of the sketches Scorel made of the monuments he had seen in Rome served as the model for the first version of the wounded man.¹¹¹¹Faries 1975, p. 164. Other instances of this phenomenon are known in the Jan van Scorel group: the form in the layout stage betrays its source more explicitly than the finalised image in paint.¹²¹²Faries 1995, p. 136.

Although this painter has been variously identified in the past (see the biography), the Good Samaritan Master is now recognised as a talented assistant in Jan van Scorel’s workshop. In 1975, the present author assembled a small core oeuvre for the master consisting of drawings and paintings that date from 1537, the date of the Rijksmuseum painting, to c. 1545/46.¹³¹³Faries 1975, pp. 161-76. This master’s technique differs from Scorel’s in that it relies on a thicker application of paint and bright colours, such as the yellows, oranges, blues and violets seen in the Rijksmuseum painting. The contrasts in lighting and modelling are almost harsh, and the master shows a preference for compact, knob-like forms, seen here in the foliage, and mountains and clouds in the background. Despite these differences, there is convincing evidence that the master worked in close proximity to Scorel. The Samaritan’s hand, which was added only in paint, may even have been executed by Scorel himself, who is known to have made similar additions to other workshop pieces.¹⁴¹⁴Faries in Utrecht 2000, Appendix, pp. 2-3. Moreover, the figure of the wounded man evokes the compassion shown for the crucified Christ in a scene such as the Lamentation, a theme that went through various manifestations in Scorel’s workshop in the years preceding the good Samaritan painting. Earlier scholars have rightly noted similarities with Scorel’s Lamentation in Utrecht.¹⁵¹⁵Centraal Museum; Utrecht 1955, p. 59, no. 52; Faries in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, no. 25 (ill.). The antique buildings in the distance, the rotunda and the coffered vault, are also reminiscent of Scorel’s works.¹⁶¹⁶Faries in Brussels-Rome 1995, p. 430. In particular, the columns of the temple of Saturn, the obelisk known as Caesar’s needle, and the pyramid of Caius Sextus form a group that must have been a Scorel workshop pattern. It occurs elsewhere in the Scorel group, in Scorel’s Madonna in Tambov,¹⁷¹⁷Faries and Helmus in Utrecht 2000, p. 84. no. C (ill.). in the background of the Visscher van der Gheer Triptych in Utrecht,¹⁸¹⁸Centraal Museum; Helmus in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, no. 34 (ill.). and in The Family of Ivo Fritema (?) in Groningen,¹⁹¹⁹Groninger Museum; illustrated in Hoogewerff IV, 1941-42, p. 217, fig. 95. a painting that is also sometimes attributed to the Good Samaritan Master.

The Rijksmuseum painting is one of the earliest depictions of the good Samaritan in the 16th-century Netherlands, and the subject becomes increasingly popular from this point on.²⁰²⁰Faries in Brussels-Rome 1995, p. 430. Unfortunately, the commission and original function of this important painting remain unknown. The depiction of the passers-by as an ecclesiastic and monk in contemporary clothing might imply criticism of the clergy.²¹²¹Ubl in Scholten 2015, p. 189, no. 70. It has also been suggested that the Rijksmuseum painting might have been commissioned by a surgeons’ guild,²²²²Hoogewerff 1929, p. 200. but the subject must have had broader appeal as well.

M. Faries, 2010
Literature updated, 2016

Hoogewerff 1923a, p. 73 (as Jan van Scorel); Friedländer XII, 1935, p. 201, no. 320 (as doubtful attribution to Jan van Scorel); Van Gelder 1939, p. 17 (as Cornelis Buys II); Hoogewerff IV, 1941-42, pp. 222-25 (as Monogrammist of Valenciennes); Utrecht 1955, pp. 61-62, no. 55 (as possibly Cornelis Buys); ENP XII, 1975, p. 122, no. 320 (as doubtful attribution to Jan van Scorel); Faries 1975, pp. 161-68 (as Master of the Good Samaritan); Faries in Utrecht-Douai 1977, pp. 107-08, no. 41; Faries in Amsterdam 1986a, pp. 236-37, no. 116; Faries in Brussels-Rome 1995, pp. 430-31, no. 253; Faries in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, no. 10; Ubl in Scholten 2015, p. 189, no. 70

1960, pp. 284-85, no. 2197 A1 (as school of Jan van Scorel); 1976, p. 512, no. A 3468 (as school of Jan van Scorel); 1992, p. 97, no. A 3468

M. Faries, 2010, 'Meester van de Barmhartige Samaritaan, The Good Samaritan, Utrecht, 1537', in J.P. Filedt Kok and M. Ubl (eds.), Early Netherlandish Paintings, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.5450