Christ on the Mount of Olives
Arent de Gelder(Dordrecht 1645 – 1727 Dordrecht)

ca. 1715
oil on panel
36.8 x 42.5 cm
AG-105© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 2 of 13

How to cite
Wheelock, Arthur K., Jr. “Christ on the Mount of Olives” (2022). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue, 3rd ed. Edited by
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. and Lara Yeager-Crasselt. New York, 2020–23. https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/(archived December 2023).
A PDF of every version of this entry is available in this Online Catalogue's Archive, and the Archive is managed by apermanent URL. New versions are added only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

Arent de Gelder’s painting captures the essence of a miraculous moment described inComparative Figures

the Gospel of St. Luke 22:39–46, when an angel, descended from Heaven, comforts
and supports Christ as he prays in a wooded grove at the Garden of Gethsemane near
the Mount of Olives. The angel, dressed in radiant white robes, tenderly reaches
toward the kneeling Savior, who prays with lowered head and raised hands.
Simultaneously, and with a gesture that visually strengthens their bond, the angel’s
extended wing wraps around and embraces Christ. The two figures glow in a pool ofheavenly light, more spiritual than physical. It overwhelms the profound darkness ofthe evening, dimly illuminating the surrounding olive trees and three sleeping
disciples huddled together in the immediate foreground.
Christ’s encounter with the angel occurred on Passover, shortly after the Last Supper
when he had informed his disciples that one of them would betray him, and before
Judas betrayed him in the Garden of Gethsemane. After the Passover feast, Jesus, as
was his custom, went to the garden at the foot of the Mount of Olives with a few of
his followers, whom the Gospel of St. Matthew identifies as Peter and the sons of

Fig 1. Rembrandt van Rijn, The
Agony in the Garden, ca. 1657, etchingand drypoint, 111 x 84 mm, British
Museum, London, inv. no.
1910,0212.384, © The Trustees of the
British Museum.

Zebedee, James and John.[1] When Christ arrived in the garden, according to theGospel of St. Luke, he urged his disciples to “pray that you will not come into
temptation.” He then moved “about a stone’s throw” away and prayed to God:
“Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not my will, but Yours be
done.”[2] As in answer to his plea, an angel descended from Heaven to succor him in
his agony. Luke relates that, even with the angel by his side, Christ’s suffering was so
intense that “His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground.”[3]

He then discovered that his disciples, exhausted from sorrow, had fallen asleep. In theGospel of St. Matthew, Christ admonished Peter with these words: “So, you men

Fig 2. Rembrandt van Rijn, Christ in
the Garden of Gethsemane, ca. 1657,
pen and brush in brown, covered inplaces with opaque white, 179 x 298
mm, Kupferstichkabinett, Hamburger
Kunsthalle, inv. no. 22413, © bpk© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 3 of 13

could not keep watch with Me for one hour? Keep watching and praying, so that you
do not come into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”[4]Bildagentur / Hamburger Kunsthalle /Elke Walford / Art Resource, NY.

Small though this painting may be, it powerfully captures the sense of isolation andanguish that consumed Christ as he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, even while
being supported by the angel. The emotional intensity of De Gelder’s interpretation ofthis drama is enhanced by the visionary quality of the scene. While Christ and theangel are brilliantly lit, they are relatively small and distant from the viewer. They
also appear insubstantial, for De Gelder only broadly suggested their figures withthick impastos and flowing brushstrokes. Translucencies in the angel’s white robes,
intended or not, suggest the spiritual nature of the figure comforting Christ at thisfrightful moment.
As was often the case throughout his career, Arent de Gelder drew inspiration from
Rembrandt van Rijn (1606–69) when devising his composition, primarily echoing themaster’s print of the same subject (fig 1),[5] but perhaps also a related drawing (fig 2).[6] Both of these works date from the late 1650s, just prior to the period during which

Fig 3. Arent de Gelder, Christ’s Prayer
in the Garden of Gethsemane, ca.
1715, oil on canvas, 72.1 x 59 cm,
Staatsgalerie Aschaffenburg, Schloss
Johannisburg, inv. no. 6298, © bpk
Bildagentur / Staatsgalerie Schloss
Johannisburg / Art Resource, NY.

De Gelder studied with the master. In each composition, Rembrandt similarly
depicted a winged angel embracing Christ as he prays on a small knoll. Heavenly
light, streaming in from the upper left, breaks through the night’s darkness toilluminate the figures. Situated somewhat apart from them are the sleeping disciples,
entirely unaware of the dramatic encounter occurring nearby.
Even though De Gelder drew heavily on one or both of Rembrandt’s compositions, hediverged from them in multiple ways to impart his own interpretation of the biblicalstory. De Gelder’s scene is more restrained, and the figures of Christ and the angel areless physical than those in Rembrandt’s drawing and etching. He eschewed the
diagonals that Rembrandt used to heighten the drama of the scene, among them thelight rays indicating the source of the heavenly light. Instead, to focus on the tenderemotional support that the angel gives to Christ in his intense sorrow, De Gelder
created a quieter composition, more circular than angular, where light seems to

Fig 4. Arent de Gelder, Jacob’s
Dream, ca. 1715, oil on canvas, 66.7 x56.9 cm, Dulwich Picture Gallery,
London, inv. no. DPG126, © Dulwich
Picture Gallery / Bridgeman Images.

emanate from the figures themselves. The arched shapes of the olive trees
surrounding Christ and the angel gently frame this miraculous encounter. De Gelder
also reversed the relative positions of the sleeping disciples in relation to Christ andthe angel. By situating the disciples in the immediate foreground, De Gelder afforded
them greater significance within the biblical narrative than they had enjoyed in
Rembrandt’s compositions, an importance that likely reflected his own deeply felt
belief that Christ suffered to atone for our sins.
De Gelder’s religious ideas were undoubtedly formed during his early years in his

Fig 5. Arent de Gelder, Healing of theSick, ca. 1722–25, oil on panel, 40.6 x
56.8 cm, The Leiden Collection, New
York, inv. no. AG-106.

native Dordrecht, a city that fully embraced the tenets of the Dutch Reformed
Church. Central to the religious training De Gelder would have received was the© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 4 of 13

Heidelberg Catechism, endorsed by the Dordrecht Synod of 1618–19, which wastaught not only in the Reformed Church but also at home and in school. The
Heidelberg Catechism presented church dogma in a question-and-answer format thatstudents and parishioners carefully memorized.[7]A major focus of the catechism was the enormity of Christ’s suffering at the end of
his life. For example, one of the questions asked, “What do you understand by theword suffered?” The proscribed answer: “During his whole life on earth, but
especially at the end, Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against thesin of the whole human race. This he did in order that, by his suffering as the only
atoning sacrifice, he might deliver us, body and soul, from eternal condemnation, andgain for us God’s grace, righteousness, and eternal life.” The Heidelberg Catechism
specifically stated that Christ’s suffering was due to God’s wrath “against the sin of
the whole human race”; thus, his suffering was understood as a direct consequence ofhuman failures, including those of the disciples who slept rather than prayed that they
not succumb to temptation.
In addition to The Leiden Collection’s Christ on the Mount of Olives, the artist’s
remarkable Passion Series, created in the last years of his life, also exemplifies De
Gelder’s pictorial expression of Christ’s suffering. Arnold Houbraken discussed thisseries in his biographical account of the artist, which he wrote in 1715:
The last of his work was the Passion, otherwise known as the history of thesuffering Christ, in 22 pieces, of which 20 are already completed, in which mostartfully the many passions or emotions may be seen from recognizable
expressions, just as there is an inconceivable variation of dress and strange
contrivances with respect to the clothing of figures, supplements and choices ofdaylight and shadow. And I guess that these works will also be his last, because
he already spends ample time going to church and visiting his friends. He is now,as I write this in the year 1715, still in good health and single.[8]Much can be gleaned from this informative text. Houbraken, who was also a native of
Dordrecht and thus fully versed in the Heidelberg Catechism and its emphasis on
Christ’s suffering, remarks that the Passion Series was known as “the history of thesuffering of Christ.” Houbraken notes that De Gelder had planned his series tonumber 22 works, 20 of which had already been completed by 1715 when he wrote
his account. Houbraken discusses the remarkable range of passions or emotions thatDe Gelder incorporated in these works, as well as the variations in dress and costumes
and his “choices of daylight and shadow.” Also important is his speculation that theseworks will be De Gelder’s “last, because he already spends ample time going to© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 5 of 13

church and visiting his friends”—indicating that De Gelder’s religious beliefs
remained strong throughout his life.
Twelve of the twenty-two paintings from the Passion Series mentioned by Houbraken,
and listed in De Gelder’s inventory of 1727, are still known, with subjects ranging
from The Last Supper to The Ascension of Christ. With two exceptions,[9] the surviving
paintings are in Aschaffenburg, at the Schloss Johannisburg, where they create amoving account of the dramatic events associated with the Passion described in theGospels. Modest in size (72.1 x 59 cm) but powerful in visual impact, each of thesescenes depicts small-scale elongated figures situated in an expansive spatialenvironment—whether in exterior settings, as in The Arrest of Christ, or indoors, as
in Christ before Caiaphas, the two works from the series held by the Rijksmuseum in
Amsterdam.
Thematically and stylistically, Christ on the Mount of Olives relates to one of thesepaintings, Christ’s Prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (fig 3), which suggests that De
Gelder likely executed it around 1715 as well. In no other instance does such a close
connection exist between one of De Gelder’s compositions and a painting from thePassion Series, which has suggested to many that Christ on the Mount of Olives was apreliminary study for Christ’s Prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane.[10] On balance,
however, this hypothesis seems unlikely.[11] Paintings belonging to the Passion Series
are vertical compositions, uniform in size, and executed on canvas supports, whereas
Christ on the Mount of Olives is a horizontal composition and painted on panel.
Among the compositional similarities that connect the two works are the small, lightfilled figures of Christ and the angel situated within a dark, wooded landscape, anddepictions of the disciples quietly sleeping nearby. Nevertheless, fundamental
compositional and conceptual differences exist. For example, in Christ’s Prayer in the
Garden of Gethsemane, the viewer looks down on the encounter between Christ andthe angel, whereas in The Leiden Collection’s painting, the viewer looks up at them.
As opposed to Christ on the Mount of Olives, in the related scene in the Passion Series,
the viewer observes the scene from behind a wooden fence that separates the viewer,both physically and emotionally, from the miraculous encounter between the angel
and Christ.
It is likely that neither the Passion Series nor Christ on the Mount of Olives in The
Leiden Collection was painted on commission. John Loughman has convincingly
proposed that the Passion Series, which remained in De Gelder’s possession to the endof his life and is listed in his inventory, was the artist’s personal meditation on Christ’s
Passion.[12] The same argument could be applied to Christ on the Mount of Olives,
which represents an even more personal and emotionally charged evocation of thescene than its depiction in the Passion Series. Loughman further emphasized that De© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 6 of 13

Gelder’s Passion Series shares many similarities with meditative literature—both
poetry and passion books—that flourished in the late seventeenth century. Authors ofthese works, including the poets Jeremias de Decker (1609–66) and Heyman Dullaert(1636–84),[13] described Christ’s sufferings in ways that would invite readers tocontemplate why Christ endured such pain and reflect on the underlying meanings of
his Passion.[14]The earliest provenance history of Christ on the Mount of Olives is unknown, but by
1795, when it is first mentioned in the literature, the painting was in France andattributed to Rembrandt. The painting appeared in the estate sale of the Parisiancollector and art dealer Claude-François Julliot (1727–94), where it was celebrated
for making “presto an astonishing light effect that is admirable.”[15] The painting next
appeared in Paris in 1826 in the estate sale of the celebrated Baron Dominique-Vivant
Denon (1747–1825), artist, diplomat, and former director of the Musées Royaux.[16]In this sale, the attribution to Rembrandt was enthusiastically endorsed, not only forthe painting’s unusual conceit but also for the magic of its color and light effects thatcreate the sense of an “apparition.” The sale catalogue entry remarks specifically thatthe pose of Christ perfectly captures the agony that afflicted him: “This painting,extraordinary in its conception and in its effect, belongs entirely to the genius of
Rembrandt.”[17]After the sale, Christ on the Mount of Olives was acquired by the English art dealer
Thomas Emmerson (1776–1855), who took the painting to London, where it soon
entered the collection of John Charles Robinson (1824–1913), a painter and graphic
artist who became a curator at the Victoria and Albert Museum, the first president of
the Burlington Fine Arts Club, and one of the founders of the Royal Society of
Painter-Printmakers. At the time of the sale of his collection in 1868, Robinson
published Memoranda on Fifty Pictures, in which he wrote about his supposed
Rembrandt painting: “This most poetical and beautiful sketch may be compared withthe celebrated little picture of Jacob’s Dream, in the Dulwich Picture Gallery (fig 4),
and was probably executed about the same time and under the same influences.”[18]At the recommendation of Robinson, who was artistic advisor to Sir Francis Cook
(1817–1901), first Viscount of Monserrate, at Doughty House, Richmond, Christ on
the Mount of Olives entered the Cook collection, which became one of the foremost
English collections in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The attributionof the painting, however, was changed from Rembrandt to Arent de Gelder in 1914
when the third baronet Herbert Cook (1868–1939) published a catalogue of thecollection. The attribution to Arent de Gelder, which has been universally accepted
ever since, was made by J.O. Kronig (1887–1984), former director of the Frans Hals
Museum, largely based on stylistic and thematic connections to De Gelder’s Passion© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 7 of 13

Series.[19]
Christ on the Mount of Olives remained in the Cook family until 1966, when Sir
Francis Ferdinand Maurice Cook (1907–78), fourth Baronet, Doughty House,
Richmond, sold it at Christie’s in London.[20] After passing through the hands of the
New York / London art dealer Julius H. Weitzner (1895–1986), Christ on the Mountof Olives was auctioned at Sotheby’s in London in 1973,[21] at which time theAmerican art dealer Richard L. Feigen (1930–2021) purchased it for his private
collection. Later that same year, Feigen acquired a second painting by De Gelder,
Healing of the Sick (fig 5). Both works remained in Feigen’s private collection until
his death and were acquired by The Leiden Collection in 2021.[22]- Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., 2022

© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 8 of 13

Endnotes
1. Matthew 26:36–39 (New American Standard Bible, NASB): “Then Jesus came with them to a placecalled Gethsemane, and told His disciples, ‘Sit here while I go over there and pray.’ And He took Peterand the two sons of Zebedee with Him, and began to be grieved and distressed. Then He said to them,‘My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me.’ And He went alittle beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, ‘My Father, if it possible, let this cup passfrom Me; yet not as I will, but as you will.’”
2. Luke 22:40–43 (NASB).
3. Luke 22:44 (NASB).
4. Matthew 26:40–41 (NASB).
5. Although De Gelder would likely have known this print from the period in which he was Rembrandt’s
pupil, he probably saw it again in the collection of Jacob Moelaert (1649–1727), a friend of the painterwho owned multiple prints and drawings by Rembrandt that he bequeathed to De Gelder. See Peter
Schoon, “Arent de Gelder (1645–1727) ‘de beste Leerling die Rembrandt teelde by de adelijke
Schilderkonst,’” in Arent de Gelder (1645–1727): Rembrandts laatste leerling, ed. Dirck Bijker (exh. cat.
Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum; Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum) (Ghent, 1998), 15, 220–22, cat.
42.
6. See Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, vol. 2, G. van den Eeckhout–I. de Joudreville(Landau, 1983), 1170, no. 766, “The composition is based on Rembrandt’s drawing of the same subject
in the Hamburger Kunsthalle (Benesch V, no. 899), and after his etching B. 75.” It is far more likely thatDe Gelder would have known Rembrandt’s etching than this drawing. Although both Rembrandt’s
drawing of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane and De Gelder’s painting are similar in that Christ is
shown in profile, a major difference is that Rembrandt’s drawing also depicts Christ’s betrayers in the
background of the scene.
7. This discussion is largely based on Guus Sluiter, “‘De Passie, anders de Historie van den lyden Christus’
Arent de Gelders Passieserie,” in Arent de Gelder (1645–1727): Rembrandts laatste leerling, ed. Dirck
Bijker (Exh. cat. Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum; Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum) (Ghent, 1998),
71–85, esp. 83–85. In this essay, Sluiter examines the religious ideas and training that Arent de Gelder
would have received in his native Dordrecht.
8. Arnold Houbraken, De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen (Amsterdam,
1718–21; rev. ed. The Hague, 1753; repr. Amsterdam, 1980), 3: 208.
9. These two works are: The Arrest of Christ and Christ before Caiaphas (both 1700–1727, Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam).
10. Karl Lilienfeld, Arent de Gelder: Sein Leben und seine Kunst (The Hague, 1914), 155, 157, no. 82: “Es isdaher nicht ausgeschlossen, dass das Bild trotz seines Breitformats und Materials (Holz) der ursprünglichen© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 9 of 13

Serie von 22 Stück angehörte. Es wird wohl—eben wegen seiner flotteren Malweise—als Vorstudie zu dem
Gemälde gleichen Gegenstandes in Aschaffenburg entstanden sein.” (It cannot be ruled out that the
picture, despite its wide format and material [wood], belonged to the original series of 22 works. It
might have been created—precisely because of its brisk painting style—as a preliminary study for thepainting of the same subject in Aschaffenburg.) John Charles van Dycke, Rembrandt and His School: A
Critical Study of the Master and His Pupils with a New Assignment of Their Pictures (New York, 1923),
92, states that it may have been the original sketch for the Aschaffenburg painting. David Raymond van
Fossen, “The Paintings of Aert de Gelder” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1969), 190, no. 29, 279,
finds Lilienfeld’s suggestion “very likely.” Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, vol. 2,
G. van den Eeckhout–I. de Joudreville (Landau, 1983), 1170, no. 766, describes the work as “Sketch forcat. no. 767 in Aschaffenburg.” Ann Jensen Adams, Dutch and Flemish Paintings from New York Private
Collections (Exh. cat. New York, National Academy of Design) (New York, 1988), 52, 68, no. 19,
agrees that the painting is “probably a study that De Gelder made for his painting of the same subject.”Guus Sluijter, in Arent de Gelder (1645–1727), Rembrandts laatste leerling, ed. Dirck Bijker (exh. cat.
Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum; Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum) (Ghent, 1998), 234–35, no. 48,
believes that the hypothesis that this painting is a study for the related scene in the Passion Series iscorrect.
11. This is also the opinion of Joachim Wolfgang Moltke, Arent de Gelder: Dordrecht
1645–1727 (Doornspijk, 1994), 89–90: “This painting does not belong to the Passion series.”
12. John Loughman, “Een stad en haar kunstconsumptie: openbare en privé-verzamelingen in Dordrecht,
1620–1719,” in De Zichtbaere Werelt: Schilderkunst uit de Gouden eeuw in Hollands oudste stad (Exh.
cat. Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum) (Zwolle, 1992), 179.
13. Both poets could have been known to De Gelder through their connections to Rembrandt. Rembrandt
painted a portrait of Jeremias de Decker in 1656 (State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg), andHeyman Dullaert, who was both a painter and a poet, studied with Rembrandt.
14. For a further discussion of the importance of meditative literature in the late seventeenth century, see
Guus Sluijter, “‘De Passie, anders de Historie van den lyden Christus’ Arent de Gelders Passieserie,” inArent de Gelder (1645–1727): Rembrandts laatste leerling, ed. Dirck Bijker (Exh. cat. Dordrecht,
Dordrechts Museum; Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum) (Ghent, 1998), 84–85.
15. “Presto a un effect de lumiere surprenant qui le fait admirer.” Claude-François Julliot’s sale, JeanBaptiste-Pierre Lebrun, Paris, 3 July 1795, no. 13, as by Rembrandt van Rijn.
16. For a full discussion of Baron Dominique-Vivant Denon and his collection, see Louis Clément de Ris,
Les Amateurs d’autrefois (Paris, 1877), 407–51. Christ on the Mount of Olives is listed on p. 444, no. 104(as by Rembrandt van Rijn).
17. “Ce tableau, extraordinaire dans sa conception et dans son effet, appartient tout entire au genie deRembrandt.” Baron Dominique-Vivant Denon’s sale, Alexis-Antoine Pérignon, Paris, 5 May 1826, no.
104, as by Rembrandt van Rijn.
© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 10 of 13

18. John Charles Robinson, Memoranda on Fifty Pictures Selected from a Collection of Works of the Ancient
Masters: With Notices of Some Italian, Spanish, German, Flemish and Dutch Painters (London, 1868), 96,
no. 41 (as by Rembrandt van Rijn). Robinson’s association of Christ on the Mount of Olives with Jacob’s
Dream in the Dulwich Picture Gallery painting is correct. The Dulwich painting, which also dates
around 1715 and was formerly attributed to Rembrandt, is now rightly attributed to Arent de Gelder.
19. J.O. Kronig, A Catalogue of the Paintings at Doughty House Richmond and Elsewhere in the Collection of
Sir Frederick Cook, bt., Visconde de Monserrate, vol. 2, Dutch and Flemish Schools, ed. Herbert Cook
(London, 1914), 38, no. 259.
20. Sale, Christie’s, London, 25 November 1966, no. 64.
21. Sale, Sotheby’s, London, 11 July 1973, no. 96.
22. See also the entry for De Gelder’s Healing of the Sick in this catalogue.

Provenance
Claude-François Julliot (1727–94), Paris (his sale, Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Lebrun, Paris, 3 July 1795, no.
13, as by Rembrandt van Rijn [for 610 assignats]).
Baron Dominique-Vivant Denon (1747–1825), Paris (his sale, Alexis-Antoine Pérignon, Paris, 5 May
1826, no. 104, as by Rembrandt van Rijn [bought in by Pérignon for 2,251 francs]) [to Thomas
Emmerson].
[Thomas Emmerson (1776–1855), London (his sale, Phillips, London, 2 May 1829, no. 114, as byRembrandt van Rijn [for 78.15 pounds]).]Sir John Charles Robinson (1824–1913), London (his sale, Hotel Drouot, Paris, 7 May 1868, no. 35, as
by Rembrandt van Rijn [bought in by Robinson for 700 francs] to Sir Francis Cook.
Sir Francis Cook (1817–1901), first Baronet, first Viscount of Monserrate, Doughty House, Richmond;by descent to his great-grandson Sir Francis Ferdinand Maurice Cook.
Sir Francis Ferdinand Maurice Cook (1907–78), fourth Baronet, Doughty House, Richmond (sale,
Christie’s, London, 25 November 1966, no. 64).
[Julius H. Weitzner (1895–1986), London, by 1969.][Hallsborough Gallery, London, 1971.](Sale, Sotheby’s, London, 11 July 1973, no. 96 [to Richard L. Feigen for £5,000].)
Richard L. Feigen (1930–2021), New York and Chicago, 1973.[1]From whom acquired, through Sotheby’s, New York (private sale), by the present owner in 2021.

Provenance Notes© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 11 of 13

1. Arent de Gelder’s Healing of the Sick, now in The Leiden Collection, was also formerly in the collectionof Richard L. Feigen.

Exhibition History
Sheffield, Graves Art Gallery, “Dutch Masterpieces,” 3 March–5 April 1956, no. 14 [lent by Sir Francis
Ferdinand Maurice Cook] [1]Manchester, Manchester City Art Gallery, on loan with the permanent collection, 1964–66 [lent by Sir
Francis Ferdinand Maurice Cook].
Chicago, Art Institute of Chicago, “Rembrandt after Three Hundred Years: An Exhibition of
Rembrandt and His Followers,” 25 October–7 December 1969; Minneapolis, Minneapolis Institute ofArts, 22 December 1969–1 February 1970; Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts, 24 February–5 April 1970,
no. 69 [lent by Julius H. Weitzner].
New York, National Academy of Design, “Dutch and Flemish Paintings from New York Private
Collections,” 10 August–25 September 1988, no. 19 [lent by Richard L. Feigen].
Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum, “Arent de Gelder (1645–1727): Rembrandts laatste leerling,” 11October 1998–24 January 1999; Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz Museum, 19 February–19 May 1999, no. 48[lent by Richard L. Feigen].
Paris, Musée du Louvre, “Dominique-Vivant Denon: L’oeil de Napoléon,” 20 October 1999–17 January
2000, no. 533 [lent by Richard L. Feigen].
Amsterdam, Hermitage Amsterdam, “Rembrandt and his Contemporaries: History Paintings from The
Leiden Collection,” 4 February–27 August 2023, no. 16 [lent by the present owner].

References
Smith, John. A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch, Flemish and French
Painters. London, 1836, 7: 37, no. 89 (as by Rembrandt van Rijn).
Blanc, Charles. Le Trésor de la curiosité, tiré des catalogues de vente de tableaux, dessins, estampes, livres,marbres, bronzes, ivoires, terres cuites, vitraux, médailles, armes, porcelaines, meubles, emaux, laques etautres objets d’art. Paris, 1858, 2: 362 (as by Rembrandt van Rijn).
Robinson, John Charles. Memoranda on Fifty Pictures Selected from a Collection of Works of the Ancient
Masters: With Notices of Some Italian, Spanish, German, Flemish and Dutch Painters. London, 1868, 96,
no. 41 (as by Rembrandt van Rijn).
Clément de Ris, Louis. Les Amateurs d’autrefois. Paris, 1877, 444, no. 104 (as by Rembrandt van Rijn).
Dutuit, Eugène. Tableaux et dessins de Rembrandt. Paris, 1885, 14 (as by Rembrandt van Rijn or school© 2024 The Leiden Collection

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 12 of 13

of Rembrandt).
Kronig, J.O. A Catalogue of the Paintings at Doughty House Richmond and Elsewhere in the Collection of
Sir Frederick Cook, bt., Visconde de Monserrate. Vol. 2, Dutch and Flemish Schools. Edited by Herbert
Cook. London, 1914, 38, no. 259.
Lilienfeld, Karl. Arent de Gelder: Sein Leben und seine Kunst. The Hague, 1914, 155, 157, no. 82.
Hofstede de Groot, Cornelis. Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten
holländischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts. Esslingen, 1915, 6: 74, no. 120 (as by Rembrandt van
Rijn).
Hofstede de Groot, Cornelis. A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch Painters of
the Seventeenth Century Based on the Work of John Smith. Edited and translated by Edward G. Hawke.
London, 1916, 6: 94, no. 120 (as by Rembrandt van Rijn).
Thieme, Ulrich, and Felix Becker, eds. Allgemeines Lexicon der Bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur
Gegenwart. Leipzig, 1920, 13: 360.
Van Dyke, John Charles. Rembrandt and His School: A Critical Study of the Master and His Pupils with a
New Assignment of Their Pictures. New York, 1923, 92.
Brockwell, Maurice W. Abridged Catalogue of the Pictures at Doughty House, Richmond, Surrey, in theCollection of Sir Herbert Cook, Bart. London, 1932, 75, no. 259.
Benesch, Otto. “Rembrandt’s Artistic Heritage.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 33 (1948): 290, 293, fig. 7.
Graves Art Gallery. Dutch Masterpieces. Exh. cat. Sheffield, Graves Art Gallery. Sheffield, 1956, 6, no.
14.
Sumowski, Werner. “Nachträge zum Rembrandtjahr 1956.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin 7 (1957–58): 226, 255, fig. 27.
Sumowski, Werner. Bemerkungen zu Otto Beneschs Corpus der Rembrandt-Zeichnungen ll. Bad Pyrmont,
1961, 16.
Brochhagen, Ernst. Galerie Aschaffenburg Katalog. Munich, 1964, 80.
Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal. Rondom Rembrandt: De verzameling Daan Cevat. Exh. cat. Leiden,
Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal. Leiden, 1968, 12.
Judson, Jay Richard, and Egbert Haverkamp Begemann, eds. Rembrandt after Three Hundred Years: An
Exhibition of Rembrandt and His Followers. Exh. cat. Chicago, Art Institute of Chicago. Chicago, 1969,
73, 155, no. 69.
Van Fossen, David Raymond. “The Paintings of Aert de Gelder.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1969,
190, no. 92, 279–80, fig. 95.
Flower, Sibylla Jane. “Aert de Gelder, Hallsborough Gallery.” Connoisseur 177, no. 712 (June 1971):
160.
Brochhagen, Ernst. Galerie Aschaffenburg Katalog. Revised edition. Munich, 1975, 98.
Sumowski, Werner. Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler. Vol. 2, G. van den Eeckhout–I. de Joudreville.
© 2024 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Christ on the Mount of Olives
Page 13 of 13

Landau, 1983, 1170, no. 766.
Adams, Ann Jensen. Dutch and Flemish Paintings from New York Private Collections. Exh. cat. New
York, National Academy of Design. New York, 1988, 52, 68, no. 19.
Moltke, Joachim Wolfgang. Arent de Gelder: Dordrecht 1645–1727. Doornspijk, 1994, 89–90, no. 60.
Bijker, Dirk, ed. Arent de Gelder (1645–1727): Rembrandts laatste leerling. Exh. cat. Dordrecht,
Dordrechts Museum; Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz Museum. Gent, 1998, 234–35, no. 48.
Rosenberg, Pierre, and Marie-Anne Dupuy-Vachey, eds. Dominique-Vivant Denon: L’Oeil de Napoléon.
Exh. cat. Paris, Musée du Louvre. Paris, 1999, 444–45, no. 533.
Sluiter, Guus. “Gelder, Arent de.” In Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon Online: Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon
Online / Artists of the World Online. Edited by Wolf Tegethoff, Bénédicte Savoy, and Andreas Beyer.
Berlin, 2009. https://www.degruyter.com/database/AKL/entry/_00187651/html.
Pergam, Elizabeth A. “John Charles Robinson in 1868: A Victorian Curator’s Collection on the Block.”
Journal of Art Historiography 18 (June 2018): 28.
Wheelock, Arthur K., Jr., Christiaan Vogelaar, and Caroline van Cauwenberge. Rembrandt and His
Contemporaries: History Paintings from The Leiden Collection. Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Hermitage
Amsterdam. Zwolle, 2023, 76–77, no. 16. [Exhibition catalogue also published in Dutch.]

Versions
Prints
1. Dominique-Vivant Denon (1747–1825), after Arent de Gelder, Christ on the Mount of Olives, late18th–early 19th century, etching, 400 x 553 mm.

2. William Brockedon (1787–1845), after Arent de Gelder, Christ on the Mount of Olives, n.d., etching,dimensions unknown.

© 2024 The Leiden Collection