The Lamentation of Christ

The support consists of two vertically grained oak planks (23.2 and 19.8 cm), 0.5-1.3 cm thick. By cutting approx. 0.5 cm along all edges from the back of the panel a tongue was created to facilitate the attachment of the original engaged frame. At the right, left and bottom there is evidence of a previous attachment of the panel in the frame (holes in the lower side edge). Dendrochronology has shown that the youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1415. The panel could have been ready for use by 1426, but a date in or after 1440 is more likely. At the left, top and bottom, an unpainted edge of 0.5-0.8 cm and a well-preserved barbe are present, so the thin white ground was probably applied in the frame (painted surface: 34.1 x 42.1 cm). The underdrawing may have been applied in a wet medium, and is fairly difficult to make out with infrared reflectography. Barely any underdrawing was revealed in the faces of Mary Magdalen, Nicodemus and John. The underdrawn layout, which is mainly visible beneath the Virgin and Christ, consists of contour lines for the shapes of the heads and short hatchings for the shadows and volume (fig. a). Reserves were left for the figures. The paint layers are quite opaque. The eyes, tears, hair, hands and nails were accentuated with delicate dabs with the brush.

Fair. There is some discoloured retouching along the join. The dark blue garment of the Virgin has darkened, the green robe of St John now appears brown, and the red drops of blood on Christ’s forehead have became transparent. The thick varnish is discoloured.

…; from the dealer E.L. van Gelder, The Hague, as Anonymous, 15th century, to the Nederlandsch Museum voor Geschiedenis en Kunst, The Hague (inv. no. 172), 1875; transferred to the museum, as school of Rogier van der Weyden, 1885

ObjectNumber: SK-A-856

Colijn de Coter’s Lamentation shows five figures at half length. The Virgin is supporting Christ’s head, and behind her are the mourning John and Nicodemus, the latter identified as such by the crucifixion nails he is holding.⁴⁴See Schiller II, 1968, p. 181. In the top left corner is Mary Magdalen wearing an ornate headdress.

The story of the descent from the cross followed by the Lamentation is told by Matthew (7:37-61), Mark (15:42-47), Luke (23:50-56) and John (19:38-42), but only John mentions Nicodemus’s presence at the Lamentation.⁵⁵Réau III, 1957, pp. 512-22; Schiller II, 1968, pp. 181-86. The personalised features of Nicodemus might indicate that this is the man who commissioned the painting.⁶⁶Pope-Hennessy 1966, p. 289; Stechow 1964, p. 300.

The intimate and confrontational nature of the scene is enhanced by the fact that the figures are half lengths and that Christ’s body lies across the picture. This manner of depiction, with its emphasis on both intense sorrow and blood-stained suffering, is an extension of the late medieval tradition.⁷⁷See, among others, Ringbom 1965, p. 48; Van Os in Amsterdam 1994, p. 104. The modest size and intimacy of the scene seem to confirm that the painting was used for private devotion.

The composition may have been inspired by paintings of the same subject with large half-length figures by Hugo van der Goes.⁸⁸See copies after Van der Goes, for example SK-A-4488. Other examples illustrated in ENP IV, 1969, nos. 23a and 23f, pl. 37. The work of Rogier van der Weyden, including paintings of the descent from the cross in Strasbourg and Bruges, also appear to have had a great influence on Colijn de Coter.⁹⁹Musées de la Ville and the Museum van de St Salvatorskerk respectively; illustrated in ENP II, 1967, nos. 97c-d, pl. 112. Both artists’ compositions were very popular and were copied many times.¹⁰¹⁰Dijkstra 1990; Van Asperen de Boer ‘et al.’ 1990, pp. 47-49. The relationship between the Rijksmuseum painting and the left panel of Hans Memling’s Deposition from the Cross in Granada is also striking.¹¹¹¹Capilla Real; illustrated in ENP VIa, 1971, no. 13, pl. 50.

De Coter depicted the Deposition and the Lamentation on several occasions. There is at least one, fairly precise workshop copy of the present painting.¹²¹²Private collection; photo RKD. It was examined under a stereomicroscope by Micha Leeflang and Arie Wallert in the Rijksmuseum in 1999. It is also closely related in composition, style and underdrawing (fig. a) to a larger painting with The Entombment in Maastricht (fig. b and fig. c) and to the so-called Bernatsky Triptych in Madison.¹³¹³Chazen Museum of Art, University of Wisconsin; illustrated in ENP IV, 1969, no. 102, pl. 94.

The Lamentation was described as a work ‘in the school of Rogier van der Weyden’ in the museum’s collection catalogue of 1887.¹⁴¹⁴Coll. cat. 1887, p. 190, no. 1628. Although it was catalogued as a Colijn de Coter in 1934,¹⁵¹⁵Coll. cat. 1934, p. 25, no. 340. it was attributed to Cornelis Engelbrechtsz by Hoogewerff in 1939 and by Pelinck about ten years later.¹⁶¹⁶Hoogewerff III, 1939, p. 338; Pelinck 1948, p. 43. This was rejected in 1965 by Ringbom, who returned it to Colijn de Coter on the evidence of its style and composition. That attribution has been widely accepted ever since. Périer-D’Ieteren confirmed it in 1985 on the basis of its underdrawing and a comparison of that with paintings signed by the artist, among them the Trinity Altarpiece in Paris.¹⁷¹⁷Périer-D’Ieteren 1985, p. 99.

Although the Amsterdam panel has many points of technical similarity to The Entombment in Maastricht (fig. b), the former was worked up with slightly more fluent brushwork. It is likely that both were executed around the same time, but it is unclear which was painted first.¹⁸¹⁸For this discussion see Hibbs Decoteau 1975, pp. 229, 254, with earlier literature; Périer-D’Ieteren 1985, p. 98. Maquet-Tombu assumed that the Amsterdam painting was executed around 1510, shortly after the Maastricht panel, but Ringbom suggested the opposite.¹⁹¹⁹Maquet-Tombu 1937, p. 35; Ringbom 1965, p. 140. Hibbs Decoteau suspected that both were made a little later, around 1510-15, and that the Maastricht work and the Bernatsky Triptych were derived from the painting in Amsterdam.²⁰²⁰Hibbs Decoteau 1975, pp. 229, 254. Périer-D’Ieteren, finally, dated both the Maastricht and Amsterdam works c. 1504-10.²¹²¹Périer-D’Ieteren 1985, p. 98. As things stand at present, on the evidence of the underdrawing and technical aspects, it seems likely that the Amsterdam work was executed around 1510-15, shortly after the Trinity Altarpiece.

(Micha Leeflang)

Friedländer IV, 1926, p. 148, no. 104; Douwes 1932, pp. 174-84; Maquet-Tombu 1937, pp. 44-46, 95; Hoogewerff III, 1939, p. 338 (as Cornelis Engebrechtsz); De Mesquita 1941, p. 145; Pelinck 1948, p. 43 (as Cornelis Engebrechtsz); Ringbom 1965, pp. 139-40; ENP IV, 1969, p. 84, no. 104; Hibbs Decoteau 1975, pp. 223-29, 254; Périer-D’Ieteren 1985, pp. 98-101, 148; Van Wegen 2005, p. 32-33

1887, p. 190, no. 1628 (as school of Rogier van der Weyden); 1903, p. 29 no. 340 (as Anonymous, second half 15th century); 1934, p. 25, no. 340 (as attributed to De Coter); 1976, p. 178, no. A 856

M. Leeflang, 2010, 'Colijn de Coter, The Lamentation of Christ, Brussels, c. 1510 - c. 1515', in J.P. Filedt Kok (ed.), Early Netherlandish Paintings, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.8180