In 1980, after years of separation, the centre panel of the Triptych with the Raising of Lazarus was reunited with its original wings (SK-A-4751-A or fig. d, SK-A-4751-B or fig. e). It depicts the episode described in John 11:1-44, and although there is no mention of it in the gospel, the artist shows St Peter loosening Lazarus’s shroud, possibly as a symbol of freeing him from sin.2 This element was undoubtedly taken from another source, quite possibly a play about Lazarus of c. 1530.3 The inscription on the hem of the robe of the second man from the right in the foreground is a reference to Matthew 22:37. On the wings are the donors with their patron saints, James the Greater and Catherine. That the wings do indeed belong with The Raising of Lazarus, as Lemmens believed, is clear from the similarities in style, figure types and underdrawing, as well as from the fact that the landscape extends across all three panels.4 The triptych probably served as an epitaph to keep the memory of the donors alive. The side and centre panels have been sawn down a little at the top. Another example of a Leiden painting of the same subject is the Triptych with the Raising of Lazarus of 1558, an epitaph for the Boot family in La Fère, which has been convincingly attributed to Aertgen van Leyden on the evidence of the similarities to his Last Judgement triptych in Valenciennes.5 The clothing of the donors, the man with a fur-lined tabbaard with hood and the woman with a linen headdress with tails, could be dated between 1525 and 1545. The identity of the donors is not known, but the palm branch leaning against the man’s shoulder and his patron saint James the Greater make it likely that he belonged to a brotherhood of Jerusalem pilgrims. It is therefore not inconceivable that the triptych was originally placed in the chapel of the Jerusalem pilgrims on the former Cellebroedersgracht in Leiden.6 The entire triptych is extensively underdrawn, probably in a dry medium (fig. a, fig. b). One striking feature is the use of many curly lines, with which the main figures were carefully prepared. Those lines are also present in the background, although there they merely give a rough indication of the placement of the final forms. The underdrawing of the architecture is also quite meticulous. The artist only departed from the underdrawing in a few places. A great deal of care was lavished on the attractive decoration of the robes of a few of the figures. Some of the decorative shapes used were already indicated in the underdrawing. The painstaking manner of working, which virtually eliminated the need for alterations, seems typical of this master. The same kind of precise and detailed work can be seen in a coherent group of drawings by the Master of the Miracles of the Apostles,7 whom we are placing under the name of Aertgen van Leyden for the reasons set out in the biography. This is illustrated, for example, by a drawn design for a Triptych with Esther before Ahasuerus in Braunschweig (fig. c),8 in which the scene is drawn in a similarly detailed way as the underdrawing of the Amsterdam triptych. Both works contain the elongated figures that are found in the entire group of drawings. The drawings have stereotype figures which are repeated constantly. One such is the crowned woman, who appears in our painting as St Catherine on the right wing. In the drawing in Braunschweig she is Esther, and there she is kneeling. The crowned woman also corresponds stylistically to the figure of St Adrian in a triptych for the Kanis family, now in Nijmegen, which at one time was attributed to Jan Wellens de Cock.9 Technical examination of that triptych has shown that the similarities are restricted to the types of figure, and that the underdrawing and painting technique differ too much to justify an attribution to the same hand.10 The similarities in style, underdrawing and technique are closer to several paintings from the workshop of Cornelis Engelbrechtsz, such as The Lamentation in Vienna attributed to the pseudo Jan Wellens de Cock.11 The Rijksmuseum bought the centre panel in 1946, at which time it was attributed to Aertgen van Leyden. That attribution was abandoned after the discovery of Aertgen’s Last Judgement triptych of 1555 in Valenciennes, which is mentioned by Van Mander, because the stylistic differences were considered to be too great.12 It is true that the differences in style between the triptych and the other paintings attributed to Aertgen in the present catalogue, such as The Calling of St Antony (SK-A-1691) are considerable, particularly as regards the underdrawing. However, the difference between the cursory and sketchy underdrawing in The Calling of St Antony and the more detailed one in the present triptych can also be explained by a difference in function. Moreover, the elongated figures do correspond closely to those in the Valenciennes triptych. For that reason the attribution to Aertgen van Leyden has been retained here. ../..