The Resurrection and the Three Marys at the Sepulchre

Carved and originally polychromed. The reverse has been hollowed out. There are two rectangular cut-outs on the angel’s back for attaching the wings (now missing). There is an old nail beside the hole on the left. Christ’s missing hands were attached with a mortise and tenon joint or added later during a restoration by this means. The rest of the object is carved from a single block of wood. Dendrochronological analysis was not possible due to a shortage of year rings.¹¹Written communication Marta Domínguez Delmás to Paul van Duin, 7 October 2016.

The polychromy has been removed with a caustic. The head of one of the Marys, the angel’s wings, Christ’s hands, the weapon in the hand of the recumbent soldier and a small piece at the front of the base are missing. There are some splits in the base.

...; sale, A.J. de Jong Schouwenburg, Huize De Ravensweerd, Gorssel, sold on the premises, 24 November 1935, no. 523;...; from the dealer S.L. Pilmeyer, Amsterdam, to the museum, as a donation by the Commissie voor de Fotoverkoop, 1937

ObjectNumber: BK-14993

Credit line: Purchased with the support of the Stichting tot Bevordering van de Belangen van het Rijksmuseum

This altarpiece fragment combines two scenes from the Resurrection of Christ. The Resurrection itself is depicted in the foreground, with Christ stepping out of an obliquely placed tomb adorned with medallions, without waking the three sleeping soldiers keeping guard over the tomb. In the background is the event that follows the Resurrection: the three Marys (Mary Magdalene, Mary Cleophas and Mary Salome) coming to the tomb to anoint Christ’s body in the morning of Easter day. Arriving at their destination, the women find an empty grave and an angel, who tells them that Christ has risen. The women and the angel are at the same level, side by side. Two of the Marys hold an ointment jar; the third woman’s head is missing. On the far right the angel sits on the corner of the lid of the tomb. With upraised hand, he appears to be addressing the women. Every element has been finished with the utmost attention to realistic detail. For instance, there are fine veins in relief on the soldiers’ hands.

The group is so closely akin in every respect to an Entombment of virtually the same size in Sint-Martinuskerk in the village of Herk-de-Stad in Belgian Limburg (fig. a) that there can be no doubt that they were successive scenes in the same Passion altarpiece.²²W. Halsema-Kubes et al., Adriaen van Wesel. Een Utrechtse beeldhouwer uit de late middeleeuwen (ca. 1417/ ca. 1490), exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1980-81, p. 142. The reversed placement of the tombs, which have exactly the same round medallions and mouldings, meant that in the altar the groups would have been each other’s compositional counterparts to the right of the central Crucifixion. Regrettably, nothing is known about the early provenance of the two groups so it cannot simply be assumed that the altar from which they came originally belonged to the Sint-Martinuskerk in Herk-de-Stad.

On the grounds of the stylistic connection with paintings from Utrecht and Holland, such as a Resurrection by the late fifteenth-century Delft Master of the Virgo inter Virgines (active, c. 1475-c. 1510),³³Former collection RMA, inv. no. SK-A-3975, see P.J.J. van Thiel et al., All the Paintings of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam: A Completely Illustrated Catalogue, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1976, p. 637. Restituted to the Goudstikker heirs in 2006. the Northern Netherlandish origin of the group long went unchallenged.⁴⁴C.M.A.A. Lindeman, ‘Een eikenhouten beeldgroep, voorstellende de Opstanding’, Mededelingen van het Departement van Onderwijs, Kunsten en Wetenschappen 1937, pp. 395-400; Verslagen omtrent ‘s Rijks verzamelingen van geschiedenis en kunst (1937), pp. 9-10; K.G. Boon, ‘Eenige opmerkingen naar aanleiding van vroege Nederlandsche Schilders’, Oud Holland 57 (1940), pp. 97-108, esp. p. 100; D.P.R.A. Bouvy, Middeleeuwsche beeldhouwkunst in de Noordelijke Nederlanden, Amsterdam 1947, p. 105; J.J.M. Timmers, Houten beelden. De houtsculptuur in de Noordelijke Nederlanden tijdens de late Middeleeuwen, Amsterdam/Antwerp 1949, p. 57; D.P.R.A. Bouvy, ‘De Verrijzenis van Christus’, Openbaar Kunstbezit 9 (1965), no. 16; J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, no. 47.

In 1973, however, De Werd connected the Entombment, and by association also the Resurrection in Herk-de-Stad, with a walnut Lamentation ([BK-1974-1](/en/collection/ BK-1974-1/catalogue-entry)) that he believed should be dated slightly earlier.⁵⁵J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, p. 513. That altarpiece fragment was purchased by the Rijksmuseum shortly before as Southern Netherlandish work dating from around 1440-50 and is in turn very closely related to a likewise walnut Descent from the Cross in the Bode-Museum in Berlin.⁶⁶H. Krohm and C. Theuerkauff, Sakrale Skulpturen. Sammlung Strohmayer, exh. cat. Bremen (Focke-Museum) 1972-73, under no. 1; T. Demmler, Deutsche Skulpturen des Deutschen Museum, vol. 3, coll. cat. Berlin (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin) 1930, no. 507. In 1977, with reservations, Didier and Krohm placed these four enigmatic works – which they praised for their personal style, superior quality, expressive powers and restraint – in the central Meuse area on the grounds of the stylistic resonance echoed in the work of the Master(s) of Elsloo, in particular in a Lamentation from around 1520.⁷⁷R. Didier and H. Krohm, Duitse middeleeuwse beeldhouwwerken in Belgische verzamelingen, exh. cat. Brussels (Generale Bankmaatschappij) 1977, no. 40; C. Ceulemans et al., Laat-gotische beeldsnijkunst uit Limburg en grensland, vol. 2, exh. cat. Sint-Truiden (Museum voor Religieuze Kunst) 1990, no. 77; C. Ceulemans and F. Peters (eds.), A Masterly Hand: Interdisciplinary Research on the Late-Medieval Sculptor(s) Master of Elsloo in an International Perspective. Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage in Brussels on 20-21 October 2011, Turnhout 2014, p. 336, where the current location is listed as the former monastic church of Wenau (Langerwehe). They even thought it possible that the four groups were created in the same workshop.⁸⁸R. Didier and H. Krohm, Duitse middeleeuwse beeldhouwwerken in Belgische verzamelingen, exh. cat. Brussels (Generale Bankmaatschappij) 1977, p. 112, note 9. The use of two types of wood in one and the same studio is unusual, however,⁹⁹But not without precedent; the Master of Hakendover worked in both walnut and oak, cf. BK-2011-3. and the stylistic similarity between the two pairs is not close enough to justify an attribution to the same workshop, or even the same region. The figures of the men in the walnut groups, for instance, have wrinkles, luxuriantly curling hair and long, curly beards, whereas the foreheads of their oak equivalents are unlined and they have just a slight wave in their hair and beards. The facial type of the women is different, too: the ones in the walnut reliefs have smaller noses and less prominent chins.

The most telling difference between the two pairs is expressed, however, in the dramatic means used and the style of the carving. Where the walnut scenes are characterized by virtuoso pathos and emotional expressions that are typical of the Southern Netherlands, the works in oak, although poignant, are relatively restrained. They also have a direct, narrative manner with a touch of humour,¹⁰¹⁰Cf. the soldier who has fallen asleep on the lid of the tomb with both hands under his head in the present group. which is generally associated with the Northern Netherlands. The oak groups are also finished much more sharply and smoothly. It is clear from comparison with contemporaneous altarpiece fragments from the Southern Netherlands, also carved from oak, that this is not just a characteristic of the harder type of wood used.¹¹¹¹Cf. a Brussels Resurrection, illustrated in sale cat. Bernard Descheemaeker, Antwerp (Works of Art), 28-30 September and 1 October 2007, no. 2 (cf. also fig. 2b for a similar group). This group was previously put forward by Bouvy (and, following him, by Leeuwenberg) as an example akin to the present group, whereas there is no question of stylistic similarity, at most some compositional parallels. They were evidently unaware that the piece was marked with a Brussels hammer, see D.P.R.A. Bouvy, Middeleeuwsche beeldhouwkunst in de Noordelijke Nederlanden, Amsterdam 1947, p. 105, fig. 117 and J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, p. 79. The group is presently in the Schoufour Collection, bequeathed to Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam, inv. no. St 222-1.

In 1980, albeit with some reservations, Halsema-Kubes was the first to relocate the oak groups in the Northern Netherlands; she was thinking primarily in terms of Utrecht, at that time the most important centre of woodcarving in the north.¹²¹²W. Halsema-Kubes et al., Adriaen van Wesel. Een Utrechtse beeldhouwer uit de late middeleeuwen (ca. 1417/ ca. 1490), exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1980-81, p. 142; note RMA. In 1990, thirteen years after he had tentatively placed the groups in the central Meuse area, Didier took another position and described the ‘faces and the treatment of the beards and hair as sufficiently characteristic’ to designate the oak groups as early works by Adriaen van Wesel (active in Utrecht c. 1417-in or after 1490) dating from around 1450-60.¹³¹³‘gezichten en behandeling van de baarden en het hoofdhaar … voldoende kenmerkend’, R. Didier in C. Ceulemans et al., Laat-gotische beeldsnijkunst uit Limburg en grensland, vol. 2, exh. cat. Sint-Truiden (Provinciaal Museum voor Religieuze Kunst) 1990, no. 19. In this analysis, Didier takes no account of the walnut groups that he and Krohm had previously placed in the same style group or even workshop. Later he was slightly more circumspect in the attribution to Van Wesel, see R. Didier in L. De Ren and B. Simon (eds.), Laat-gotische beeldsnijkunst uit Limburg en grensland. Handelingen van het symposium, Sint Truiden 12-13 November 1990, Sint-Truiden 1992, p. 162 under cat. no. 19. Although the attribution to this artist does not convince – the graphic workmanship of the groups does not accord with his more painterly manner, the expressions on the faces of the figures, despite the absence of wrinkles, are rather more serious than his, while their hair is not executed in the wispy fashion typical of Van Wesel (cf. BK-NM-11859) – given the affinity with Van Wesel in conjunction with the type of wood used,¹⁴¹⁴Whereas the woodcarvers in the Northern Netherlands worked exclusively in oak in this period, their Southern Netherlandish counterparts most often used walnut. a Northern Netherlandish origin (probably in Utrecht) seems the most likely. There are parallels enough to be found in Northern Netherlandish woodcarving of this period for the facial type of the female saints and the angel’s springing curls and diadem,¹⁵¹⁵For the saints, cf. the face of the Virgin from an Adoration of around 1490-1500 in Museum Catharijneconvent. For the angel, cf. two corbel pieces with shield-bearing angels of around 1475 in the German House in Utrecht and a limestone angel of around 1480 in the Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal in Leiden, see 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, nos. 43, 14 and 49 respectively. and the Christ type with the short, forked beard (BK-18041, BK-NM-9383 and BK-1964-1).

Despite the differences outlined above, the stylistic parallels that exist between the four walnut and oak groups – such as the similar figure types, Mary Magdalene’s ‘Utrecht’ hair and headdress in the Lamentation and the compressed, relatively crowded composition (more on these aspects at BK-1974-1) – can probably be explained by the artistic exchange between the Southern and Northern Netherlands (particularly between Brabant and Utrecht) that came about as a result of the mobility of both artists and works of art (Utrecht pipeclay sculpture is a case in point). Telling evidence of this includes a seated Virgin and Child, a Virgin on the Crescent Moon and a Virgin Reading a Book from an Annunciation: three oak carvings with Antwerp or Mechelen guild marks whose style unmistakably points towards the Utrecht of Adriaen van Wesel.¹⁶¹⁶D. Preising, ‘Utrecht und Brabant. Künstlerische Wechselbeziehungen 1430-1530’, Aachener Kunstblätter 65 (2014), pp. 56-71, figs. 1-6.

Bieke van der Mark, 2024

J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, no. 46, with earlier literature; W. Halsema-Kubes et al., Adriaen van Wesel. Een Utrechtse beeldhouwer uit de late middeleeuwen (ca. 1417/ ca. 1490), exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1980-81, no. 34, pp. 142, 144; P. Valvekens, Een keuze uit het kerkelijk kunstbezit van de parochies van Groot-Herk-de-Stad, exh. cat. Sint-Truiden (Provinciaal Museum voor Religieuze Kunst) 1980 (Kunst en Oudheden in Limburg 25), p. 40; C. Ceulemans et al., Laat-gotische beeldsnijkunst uit Limburg en grensland, exh. cat. Sint-Truiden (Provinciaal Museum voor Religieuze Kunst) 1990, under no. 19; L. De Ren and B. Simon (eds.), Laat-gotische beeldsnijkunst uit Limburg en grensland. Handelingen van het symposium, Sint Truiden 12-13 November 1990, Sint-Truiden 1992, p. 162, under no. 19; M. van Vlierden et al., Hout- en steensculptuur van Museum Catharijneconvent, ca. 1200-1600, coll. cat. Utrecht 2004, p. 164

B. van der Mark, 2024, 'anonymous, The Resurrection and the Three Marys at the Sepulchre, Northern Netherlands, c. 1460', in F. Scholten (ed.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.24315