Christ is depicted three-quarter length displaying his wounds. His torso is naked and his legs are partially covered by a loincloth. His head with an elaborate crown of thorns and accentuated by a colourful halo forms the central part of the upper half of the painting. In the background on the right we see Calvary with its three crosses and two crucified thieves, to the left a valley with Jerusalem and mountains in the distance. The theme of the Man of Sorrows presents Christ neither dead nor alive, but rather as a timeless figure. It was imported into Italy from Byzantium in the late 13th century, and its development in devotional art during the centuries thereafter, both in Italy and in northern Europe, created various iconographic possibilities, either with or without other figures.13 The Rijksmuseum panel is related to a few half-length devotional paintings depicting Christ as the Man of Sorrows, without other figures, executed by Heemskerck and his workshop in the 1540s, which ultimately seem to be based on his 1532 Ghent Man of Sorrows,14 in which Christ is presented by angels, a primarily north European motif.15 One of these paintings, Heemskerck’s Man of Sorrows in the Kister Collection in Kreuzlingen (fig. a), convincingly dated in the mid-1540s by Harrison,16 is particularly close to the Rijksmuseum panel, especially in the position and contours of Christ’s torso, his left arm and the presence of a bright halo. More than anything, the Amsterdam panel seems connected to Heemskerck’s Turin Lamentation (fig. b), dated around 1545,17 a workshop version of which is in the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam.18 As Harrison noted, Christ’s right arm in the Amsterdam panel seems a direct copy of his right arm in the one in Turin, and the image of Calvary in the Rijksmuseum could well have been taken from the Turin painting as well.19 Within the series of half-length Christ as the Man of Sorrows, the Amsterdam painting is the only one with background scenery.20 Scholars are not sure whether to regard this as a work by Heemskerck or his assistants. Preibisz included it in his 1911 monograph as wrongly attributed to the master, whereas Hoogewerff placed it at the end of Heemskerck’s career, seeing in it the artist’s lack of inspiration after the Iconoclasm.21 Veldman suggested that it might be a copy after Heemskerck’s Kister and Ghent Man of Sorrows.22 Grosshans recognised Heemskerck’s hand in the composition and execution.23 Harrison suggested that the work was painted by Heemskerck’s ‘abler shop assistants’, soon after the master’s Turin Lamentation and the Kister Man of Sorrows.24 After a close analysis of the Amsterdam painting, the Rijksmuseum also proposes an attribution to Heemskerck’s workshop. The hatchings in the underdrawing, visible to the naked eye especially in between Christ’s right phalanxes and on his left wrist, are unusual for Heemskerck. In addition, the scenery in the background, especially the foliage, is executed in a more detailed and precise manner than one would expect from the artist. After a close examination of both the Amsterdam panel and the Rotterdam copy of the Turin Lamentation, it seems that the Rijksmuseum painting was executed by a different workshop assistant from the one who painted the Boijmans Van Beuningen panel. The execution of Christ’s loincloth, for example, is cruder in the Amsterdam painting, which is especially visible in the darker tones. (Ilona van Tuinen)