Jan van Scorel’s Crucifixion for the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam: The “finest painting in all of the regions of Flanders”

This essay identifies one of Jan van Scorel’s most important, lost works—the Crucifixion for the high altar of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam—by evaluating the evidence provided by workshop replicas, later copies, and other works influenced by the original painting. The questions surrounding the prestigious Oude Kerk commission play out in the context of Scorel’s reestablishment in the northern Netherlands after his return from Italy in 1524 and the responses by Scorel’s contemporaries such as Maarten van Heemskerck to his new Italianate style.

DOI: 10.5092/jhna.12.2.1

Appendix: The Frame of the Crucifixion Triptych by Jan van Scorel and Workshop in the Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht

by Caroline van der Elst

In 2008, the panels of Jan van Scorel’s Crucifixion Triptych were studied, cleaned and treated.83 The cassetta frame is oak; the molding profiles and corners of the middle panel and wings correspond exactly (see figs. 8 and 9). The corners are both mitered and square cut, and the joints are secured by dowels. It is only the center frame that shows any sign of a later intervention. Two flat strips, around two centimeters in width, were added to the frame along the left and right edges.84 These wrap around to the reverse to form flat boards that stabilize the construction and help support the heavy weight of the triptych. For the center frame, dendrochronology had to be carried out on these reinforcing boards, because they provided the only visible end-grain. The seventeenth-century year rings that were encountered confirm the fact that these boards were later additions. The dendrochronology of the wings, however, determined that the wood of both the panels and their frames dates from the early sixteenth century.85 Two original iron hooks for hanging are still present on the upper left and right corners of the reverse of the center frame. The hinges are all original; the halves on the wings belong to the halves on the center frame, and the nails are all of the same type (fig. 20). There are no indications that the hinges have been replaced or repositioned.86

Detail of fig. 8: original hinge
Fig. 20 Detail of fig. 8: original hinge. Photo: Caroline van der Elst [side-by-side viewer]

The format of the center panel has not been altered. It was painted to the edges and would have been slid into the frame and secured with nails. The panels of the wings were painted on both sides while in their frames; they have original paint edges (barbs) appearing along unpainted wooden borders. During the 2008 conservation, the author observed traces of original paint that had spilled over from the frames onto the edges of the unpainted borders in both the Garden of Gethsemane and Flagellation on the outer wings.87 Several of the wing corners were opened during restoration after removing the original dowels, revealing the interior of the joint (fig. 21).88

Detail of fig. 9: open joint of wing frame
Fig. 21 Detail of fig. 9: open joint of wing frame. Photo: Jean-Albert Glatigny [side-by-side viewer]

As is well known, sixteenth-century frames were often quite colorful, and that of the Crucifixion Triptych is no exception.89 During the 2008 restoration, some quick stratigraphic cleaning tests were carried out on the frame, which is presently painted black with gilded moldings. They reveal that the frame of the middle panel was painted bright red and light green in imitation of marble (fig. 22). 90 This varies slightly in tone from that of the wings, where more green was used along with smaller amounts of rose (fig. 23). No traces of green or red glazes were found on the marbling. Since the marbling is also present on the added vertical strips, it cannot be excluded that the center frame may have been partially or wholly overpainted.91 The original paint on the exterior wings included traces of gold but was generally darker, in tones of brown and black.

 

 

 

Caroline van der Elst completed her postgraduate training in the conservation of paintings and polychromed sculpture at the Stichting Restauratie Atelier Limburg in Maastricht, after studying art history at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, and qualifying as a drawing instructor in fine arts at the Amsterdamse Hogeschool voor de Kunsten. She works as an independent paintings conservator and often publishes on materials and technique. She has worked for a number of Dutch museums, including Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht.

caroline.restauratie@planet.nl

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Ilja Veldman for ongoing discussions when this article was in the planning stages, and to Jan Piet Filedt Kok, Daantje Meuwissen, and Ilja Veldman for their critical reading of the final version.

Fig. 1 Attributed to Cornelis Buys IV (Cornelis Jacobsz), Rest on the Flight into Egypt, ca. 1525–30, oil on panel, 88.4 x 69.5 cm. Private collection, Spain (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Attributed to Dirck Jacobsz, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, 1526
Fig. 2 Attributed to Dirck Jacobsz, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, 1526, center panel of a triptych, 110 x 68 cm. Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart, inv. no. GVL 61a [side-by-side viewer]
Reconstruction of the high altar by Jan van Scorel
Fig. 3 Reconstruction of the high altar by Jan van Scorel. After Dudok van Heel, fig. 11a. [side-by-side viewer]
After Jan van Scorel, Crucifixion Triptych, c. 1550–75
Fig. 4 After Jan van Scorel, Crucifixion Triptych, c. 1550–75, oil on panel, middle panel 97.5 x 76 cm, wings 97 x 38.5 cm. Kathedraal Museum Nieuwe Bavo, Haarlem. Photo: Arend Velsink [side-by-side viewer]
After Jan van Scorel, Crucifixion, 1530
Fig. 5 After Jan van Scorel, Crucifixion, 1530, oil on panel, 123.5 x 120.5 cm. Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Bonn. Photo: digital composite by Molly Faries [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Scorel and workshop, Carrying of the Cross, ca. 1530
Fig. 6 Jan van Scorel and workshop, Carrying of the Cross, ca. 1530, oil on panel, 48.3 x 32.9 cm. Private collection, New York. Photo: courtesy Haboldt & Co. [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of Christ figure in fig. 6
Fig. 7a Detail of Christ figure in fig. 6. Photo: courtesy Haboldt & Co. [side-by-side viewer]
Corresponding infrared reflectogram digital composite showing underdrawing
Fig. 7b Corresponding infrared reflectogram digital composite showing underdrawing. IRR: © Stichting RKD [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Scorel and workshop, Crucifixion Triptych, ca. 1530
Fig. 8 Jan van Scorel and workshop, Crucifixion Triptych, ca. 1530 (middle panel) and ca. 1540 (left and right interior wings, Carrying of the Cross and Resurrection), oil on panel, middle panel 130 x 116 cm, wings 130 x 48 cm each. Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht. Photo: Ruben de Heer [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Scorel and workshop, Crucifixion Triptych, exterior wings: Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane with Carthusian Donors and Flagellation of Christ, ca. 1540
Fig. 9 Jan van Scorel and workshop, Crucifixion Triptych, exterior wings: Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane with Carthusian Donors and Flagellation of Christ, ca. 1540, oil on panel, 130 x 48 cm each. Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht. Photo: Ruben de Heer [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of Flagellation in fig. 9
Fig. 10a Detail of Flagellation in fig. 9. Photo: Ruben de Heer [side-by-side viewer]
Corresponding infrared reflectogram digital composite showing underdrawing
Fig. 10b Corresponding infrared reflectogram digital composite showing underdrawing. IRR: © Stichting RKD [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of reconstruction with omitted right edge of inner left wing
Fig. 11 Detail of reconstruction with omitted right edge of inner left wing. Photo: digital composite by Molly Faries [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Scorel, The Lokhorst Triptych: Entrance of Christ into Jerusalem, middle panel and interior wings, ca. 1526
Fig. 12 Jan van Scorel, The Lokhorst Triptych: Entrance of Christ into Jerusalem, middle panel and interior wings, ca. 1526, oil on panel, 95.7 x 323.5 cm (open) (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Scorel and workshop, Adoration of the Magi, ca. 1530–35, National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, NGI 997
Fig. 13 Jan van Scorel and workshop, Adoration of the Magi, ca. 1530–35, oil on panel, 93.3 x 74.8 cm. National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, NGI 997. Photo © National Gallery of Ireland [side-by-side viewer]
Maarten van Heemskerck, Christ on Calvary, ca. 1527–29, Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit
Fig. 14 Maarten van Heemskerck, Christ on Calvary, ca. 1527–29, oil on panel, 38 x 34.2 cm. Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, USA Founders Society Purchase. Photo: Julius H. Haass fund/Bridgeman Images [side-by-side viewer]
Maarten van Heemskerck (seventeenth-century copy after?), Lamentation with Donor
Fig. 15 Maarten van Heemskerck (seventeenth-century copy after?), Lamentation with Donor, oil on canvas, 262.5 x 197.5 cm. Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht, inv. no. BMH s360. Photo: Ruben de Heer [side-by-side viewer]
Jacob Cornelisz, Crucifixion, ca. 1524
Fig. 16 Jacob Cornelisz, Crucifixion, ca. 1524, oil on panel, 66.5 x 54 cm. Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Ghent (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 5: signature and date
Fig. 17 Detail of fig. 5: signature and date. Photo: J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer [side-by-side viewer]
Maarten van Heemskerck, Crucifixion, 1540, (middle panel of polyptych), Cathedral, Linköping, Sweden
Fig. 18 Maarten van Heemskerck, Crucifixion, 1540, oil on panel (middle panel of polyptych), 570 x 385 cm. Cathedral, Linköping, Sweden. Photo: René Gerritsen Art Research Photography [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 5: light blue and light green background mountains
Fig. 19 Detail of fig. 5: light blue and light green background mountains. Photo: J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 8: original hinge
Fig. 20 Detail of fig. 8: original hinge. Photo: Caroline van der Elst [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 9: open joint of wing frame
Fig. 21 Detail of fig. 9: open joint of wing frame. Photo: Jean-Albert Glatigny [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 8: polychromy of center frame
Fig. 22 Detail of fig. 8: polychromy of center frame. Photo: Caroline van der Elst [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 9: polychromy of wing frame
Fig. 23 Detail of fig. 9: polychromy of wing frame. Photo: Caroline van der Elst [side-by-side viewer]
  1. 1. Hessel Miedema, ed., Karel van Mander: The Lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters, vol. 1 (Doornspijk: Davaco, 1994), fo. 236r. Scorel’s altarpiece was destroyed during the Iconoclasm in Amsterdam, on August 23, 1566. The destruction of images in chapels and churches spread rapidly after the first outbreaks in southwest Flanders at the beginning of August, 1566, reaching Antwerp by August 20. In less than two days’ time, the strict Catholic city government of Amsterdam had already heard what had happened in Antwerp and allowed images and precious objects to be removed from churches and brought to safety. Some were taken from chapels and altars belonging to the guilds, whose members protested and had the images replaced. Unrest increased and disturbances arose in the Nieuwe and Oude Kerk. The unruly crowd was calmed in the Nieuwe Kerk but not in the Oude Kerk. There the angry mob continued to destroy the interior, even chasing away the men who had been sent by the sheriff. Finally, members of the civic guards persuaded the mob to leave the Oude Kerk, but by then the altarpiece by Scorel had been destroyed. For the Iconoclasm in Amsterdam, see Henk van Nierop, “Van Wonderjaar tot Alteratie, 1566–1578,” in Geschiedenis van Amsterdam: Een stad uit het niets tot 1578, ed. Marijke Carasso-Kok (Amsterdam: Sun, 2004), 1:455–58.

  2. 2. Taken from El felicissimo viaie d’el muy alto y muy poderoso Principe Don Phelippe . . . , Antwerp, 1552, fo. 288v, and quoted by J. Bruyn, “Enige gegevens over de chronologie van het werk van Jan van Scorel,” Oud Holland 70 (1955), 202: “hay una pintura d’el mysterio de la passion de Christo, que es la mejor, que hay en todos los Estados de Flandes, hizola Iuan Scorelio Canonigo d’Vtrecht, unico en la pintura por aquellas tierras.

  3. 3. S. A. C. Dudok van Heel, “Het hoogaltaar in de Oude Kerk door Jan van Scorel en Maerten van Heemskerck 1525–1537–1566: Van drieluik tot zevenluik,” Jaarboek van het Genootschap Amstelodamum 110 (2018): 54–89.

  4. 4. Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 236r.

  5. 5. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 56.

  6. 6. Dudok van Heel, 56.

  7. 7. Dudok van Heel, 56–58.

  8. 8.  S. A. C. Dudok van Heel, with contributions by W. J. van den Berg, “De schilders Jacob Cornelisz. alias Jacob War en Cornelis Buys uit Oostzaan, hun werkplaatsen in Amsterdam en Alkmaar,” De Nederlandsche Leeuw 128 (2011): 49–79.

  9. 9. Molly Faries and Daantje Meuwissen, “Identifying Two Family Members in Jacob Cornelisz’s Amsterdam Workshop: Cornelis Buys and Cornelis Anthonisz,” in Technical Studies of Paintings: Problems of Attribution (15th–17th Centuries), ed. Anne Dubois, Jacqueline Couvert and Till-Holger Borchert, 298–303 (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2018). Originally presented at the Nineteenth Symposium for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting held in Bruges, September 11–13, 2014. The monogram on the Stuttgart panel indicates that it derives from Jacob Cornelisz’s shop, but the painting technique and landscape background are typical of Dirck Jacobsz.

  10. 10. Faries and Meuwissen, 302–303.

  11. 11. For this painting, see J. P. Filedt Kok, “Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, The Holy Family, c. 1528–c. 1530,” in J. P. Filedt Kok, ed., Early Netherlandish Paintings, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, accessed March 31, 2019, http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.461060.

  12. 12. Faries and Meuwissen, “Two Family Members,” 303n20. Faries is currently preparing a longer text on this topic for the Phoebus Foundation, Antwerp.

  13. 13. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 58.

  14. 14. A survey of Van Mander yields only two or three instances; see Hessel Miedema, “Vakonderwijs aan kunstschilders in de Nederlanden,” Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 5–6 (1986–87): 271

  15. 15. Natasja Peeters, with the collaboration of Max Martens, “Assistants in Artists’ Workshops in the Southern Netherlands, overview of the archive sources,” in Invisible Hands? The Role and Status of the Painter’s Journeymen in the Low Countries c. 1450–c. 1650, ed. Natasja Peeters (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 42–45. Of course, the establishment of fines indicates that the practice occasionally occurred, and there is also evidence in Italy that assistants sometimes obtained commissions in their own right; see Anabel Thomas, The Painter’s Practice in Renaissance Tuscany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 2, 86–87.

  16. 16. Molly Faries, “Jan van Scorel’s Clerical Patronage,” Bollettino d’arte, Supplemento al fasc. N. 100 (1997): 107–8.

  17. 17. Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 235v.

  18. 18. Molly A. Faries, “Jan van Scorel: Additional Documents from the Church Records of Utrecht,” Oud Holland 85 (1970): 4, 12.

  19. 19. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 58.

  20. 20. 1–2) lost organ wings and lost exterior wings for the high altar of Oudmunster, as discussed in the text proper, 3) Lokhorst Triptych, 4) a now-lost Baptism dated 1525, once in the Janskerk; see G. J.Hoogewerff, Jan van Scorel: Peintre de la Renaissance hollandaise (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1923), 52; 5) two panels with Twelve Members of the Utrecht Brotherhood of Jerusalem Pilgrims, 6) lost wings for the high altar of the Mariakerk, described by Van Mander; see Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 236r.

  21. 21. Faries, “Additional documents,” 4, 12.

  22. 22. The “four large pieces in watercolor, in the manner of Scorel” listed in the inventory “Eerst vier stucken van waterverff groot zijnde, wesende van de handelinge van Schorel,” published in G. Brom, “Kerksieraden van Oudmunster,” Archief voor de geschiedenis van het aartsbisdom Utrecht 27 (1901): 395, refer in all probability to tüchlein—i.e., canvases painted in a glue medium, a technique often employed for organ wings—and correspond to the unspecified watercolors that Van Mander says Scorel painted for Herman van Lokhorst just after he returned from Italy. See Molly Faries, “Jan van Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique,” in Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, Catalogue of Paintings, 1363–1600, Centraal Museum Utrecht, ed. Molly Faries and Liesbeth M. Helmus (Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 2011), 25.

  23. 23. Bram van den Hoven van Genderen, De Heren van de Kerk, de kanunniken van Oudmunster te Utrecht in de late middeleeuwen (Zutphen: Walburg Press, 2003), 509–10.

  24. 24. For these group portraits, see Faries in Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, cat. nos. 21a–b.

  25. 25. Faries, “Additional Documents,” 12–13.

  26. 26. For Scorel and the guild, see Molly Faries, “Underdrawings in the Workshop Production of Jan van Scorel: A Study with Infrared Reflectography,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 26 (1975): 90–91.

  27. 27. Also arguing against Scorel’s presumed stay in Amsterdam is the fact that Jacob Cornelisz, perhaps assisted in the landscape by his son, Dirck Jacobsz, as Henri Defoer believes, based his view of Jerusalem in the c. 1525–30 Temptation of Christ (Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen) on Erhard Reuwich’s woodcut in Bernard von Breydenbach’s Peregrinatio in terram sanctam (1486) rather than the topographical sketches of Jerusalem that Scorel brought back from his travels. The sketches would probably have been known to Jacob Cornelisz if Scorel had been lodging with him. For the Aachen painting, see Daantje Meuwissen, Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen (ca. 1475–1533): De Renaissance in Amsterdam en Alkmaar, exh. cat. (Zwolle: Waanders, 2014), cat. no 58.

  28. 28. Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 236r.

  29. 29. Liesbeth M. Helmus, Schilderen in opdracht: Noord-Nederlandse contracten voor altaarstukken 1485–1570 (PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 2010), 132.

  30. 30. Helmus, 418: “te schilderen die vier zyden van de twee binnenste deuren . . . de twee binnenzyden van de buytenste deurren.”

  31. 31. Jefferson Cabell Harrison, The Paintings of Maerten van Heemskerck: A Catalogue Raisonné (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1987), 333.

  32. 32. Faries, “Additional Documents,” 21.

  33. 33. In an unpublished document (“Het Utrechts Archief, Kapittel van Sint Marie te Utrecht” [no. 221], S. Marie no. 12, fo. 166v, dated April 14, 1535), the chapter of the Mariakerk authorized Jan van Scorel to present a letter to Karel van Egmond, Duke of Guelders, concerning the return of the chapter’s unicorn horn. For more on this escapade, see Hoven van Genderen, De Heren van de Kerk, 620.

  34. 34. Scorel promised to negotiate in 1535, and meetings continued to 1541–42; see Faries, “Additional documents,” 18–19.

  35. 35. In the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; the museum’s website has a good illustration of the altarpiece with the inner wings closed and the outer wings open: https://www.khm.at/en/visit/collections.

  36. 36. Faries, “Underdrawings in the Workshop Production of Jan van Scorel,” 113–14. The museum’s website has good illustrations of all the panels of the polyptych: https://webmuseo.com/ws/musenor/app/collection.

  37. 37. Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 246r.

  38. 38. Faries, “Underdrawings in the Workshop Production of Jan van Scorel,” 106.

  39. 39. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 76. As yet the only works by Scorel that are known to have served as vidimuses are wash drawings on paper, and there are no known oil sketches as such.

  40. 40. Report by Peter Klein, University of Hamburg, dated April 5, 2004 (this and all subsequently cited reports by Klein are archived at RKD – Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis). The youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1485; the panel could have been ready for use by 1496, but a date in or after 1510 is more likely. Too-early dating occurs in a small percentage of cases in the Scorel group, especially in small panels where there is a greater chance that more recent year rings have been trimmed off.

  41. 41. This panel may represent a typical form of collaboration in which the master executes the layout and an assistant brings the image to completion in paint. However, after comparing the sketchy layout of the Carrying of the Cross with more recent infrared imaging of related works, it is evident that the underdrawing is extremely loose and lacks Scorel’s skilled outlining of bodily forms. The IRR was carried out by Margreet Wolters, Curator of Technical Documentation, RKD, The Hague, on February 19, 2007, using a Hamamatsu C 2400-07 equipped with a N2606 IR vidicon, a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 1:2.8/55 mm lens, a Heliopan RG 850 (or RG 1000) filter, with a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor (625 lines). Digitized documentation is performed with a Meteor RCB framegrabber, 768 x 574 pixels, colorvision toolkit (Visualbasic).

  42. 42. Scorel evolves more diagrammatic underdrawings during the Haarlem period, with long, undulating contours and systematized hatching, often in the form of localized zigzags; see Faries, “Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique,” 37.

  43. 43. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 76 and figs. 6a–b.

  44. 44. Defoer believes that the multifigure versions of the Carrying of the Cross and Resurrection (as in fig. 4) are enlargements of the more compact compositions (as in fig. 9), which are Scorel’s original prototypes. Anomalies were introduced when the compositions were expanded: in the Resurrection, Christ no longer stands on the central axis, and the soldiers no longer overlap each other, as is more typical of Scorel. In the Carrying of the Cross, Veronica was added with the two women above her; she does not look directly at Christ, and she sits, rather than kneels, on the ground. This compositional development contradicts Dudok van Heel’s assumption that figure 6 represents the initial design for the Carrying of the Cross.

  45. 45. For Scorel’s use of squaring, see Faries, “Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique,” 40.

  46. 46. Faries, “Underdrawings in the Workshop Production of Jan van Scorel,” 176–82; and Molly Faries, “Die Werkstaat Jan van Scorels in Haarlem,” in Künstlerwerkstätten der Renaissance, ed. Roberto Cassanelli (Milan: Editoriale Jaca Book, 1998), 306–8. The second donor near the panel’s edge was added in a later paint stage, on top of the paint of the background. The IRR was carried out by Margreet Wolters, Curator of Technical Documentation, RKD, The Hague, and Micha Leeflang, Curator of Medieval Art, Museum Catharijneconvent, September 3–4, 2007, using a Hamamatsu C 2400-07 equipped with a N2606 IR vidicon, a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 1:2.8/55 mm lens, a Heliopan RG 850 (or RG 1000) filter, with a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor (625 lines). Digitized documentation is performed with a Meteor RCB framegrabber, 768 x 574 pixels, colorvision toolkit (Visualbasic).

  47. 47. Faries, “Underdrawings in the workshop production of Jan van Scorel,” 182. Report by Peter Klein, University of Hamburg, April 22, 2008: the youngest heartwood ring in the wings was formed in 1519; the panel could have been ready for use by 1530, but a date around 1536/1544 is more likely, after either two or ten years’ seasoning. Report by Peter Klein, University of Hamburg, June 19, 2001: the youngest heartwood ring in the middle panel was formed in 1500; the panel could have been ready for use by 1511, but a date around 1517/1525 is more likely, after either two or ten years’ seasoning.

  48. 48. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 73, figs. 7a–7b.

  49. 49. Report by Peter Klein, University of Hamburg, April 22, 2008: the youngest heartwood ring in the frame of the wings was formed in 1515 and that of the wing panels in 1519. Klein found seventeenth-century year rings in the frame of the middle panel (report dated June 19, 2001), but these derive from a board that was added as a later reinforcement; see Appendix.

  50. 50. By contrast, the frame of the triptych formerly in the Begijnhof requires further study; the wings only close over the middle panel because their frames are wider at the top and thinner on the sides. The difference in figure scale between the wings and middle panel may indicate, in this case, that the panels do not belong together.

  51. 51. Both panels in figure 11 appear to include a structure indicating the Dome of the Rock, a repetition that would contradict space meant to be continuous.

  52. 52. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 77.

  53. 53. Ingeborg Krueger, “Jan van Scorel (Umkreis), Kalvarienberg, 1530,” in Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, Kunst und Kunsthandwerk: Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Kunst und Altertum am Rhein, no. 69 (Cologne: Rheinland, 1977), 92. Tatjana van Run came to the same conclusion when she re-measured the panel; see Tatjana van Run, Altaarstukken met het lijden van Christus in serieproductie: Een onderzoek naar de hand van de meester en zijn leerlingen (B.A. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2008), 32. On November 24, 1979, Molly Faries and J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer examined the Bonn panel out of its frame. They found pencil lines along the curve of the cut upper corners (probably a guide for the sawing) and noted that the wings of the angels at the top of the composition were just slightly cut off in the underdrawing, suggesting that the top had only been trimmed slightly.

  54. 54. Van Run, Altaarstukken, 31–32, found a copy of Scorel’s Resurrection wing still at the original location; its shape was also originally rectangular.

  55. 55. For the Lokhorst Triptych, see Faries in Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, cat. no. 22.

  56. 56. Molly Faries and Martha Wolff, “Landscape in the Early Paintings of Jan van Scorel,” The Burlington Magazine 138 (November 1996): 724–33.

  57. 57. For the Adoration, see Helmus in Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, cat. no. 30.

  58. 58. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 55, 65.

  59. 59. For this point, see Molly Faries, “The Vienna Wing Panels by Geertgen tot Sint Jans and His Drawing and Painting Technique,” Oud Holland 23, no. 3–4 (2010): 214.

  60. 60. Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 245r.

  61. 61. See note 4. Ilja Veldman has proposed that Heemskerck could have resided in the house that Scorel rented for himself and his Haarlem mistress, Agatha van Schoonhoven; see Ilja Veldman, “Adaptation, Emulation and Innovation: Scorel, Gossaert and Other Artists as a Source of Inspiration for the Young Heemskerck,” Oud Holland,132 (2019): 177.

  62. 62. See, for instance, Faries, “Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique,” 37.

  63. 63. Jefferson Cabell Harrison, “The Detroit Christ on Calvary and the Cologne Lamentation of Christ: Two Early Haarlem Paintings by Maerten van Heemskerck,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 37 (1986): 175.

  64. 64. Molly Faries, “Attributing the Layers of Maarten van Heemskerck’s Cologne Lamentation,” in Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture, Colloque X: Le dessin sous-jacent dans la process de création, Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut supérieur d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art, Document de travail no. 28, ed. Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq (Louvain-la-Neuve: Collège Erasme, 1995), 133–41; and Molly Faries, Christa Steinbüchel and J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer, “Maarten van Heemskerck and Jan van Scorel’s Haarlem Workshop,” in Historical Painting Techniques, Materials, and Studio Practice, preprints of a symposium, University of Leiden, The Netherlands, 26-29 June 1995, ed. Arie Wallert, Erma Hermens, and Marja Peek (Marina Del Rey, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1995), 135–39. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/historical_painting

  65. 65. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. 1, dated c. 1527–29. See also Veldman, “Young Heemskerck,” 177–79.

  66. 66. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. A1.

  67. 67. Harrison gives two opinions: in his 1986 publication (Harrison, “The Detroit Christ on Calvary,” 181–82), he sees the influence of Scorel’s Crucifixion; but in his 1987 dissertation (Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. 1), he does not. Harrison now believes Jacob Cornelisz’s Ghent Calvary is the more immediate source for Heemskerck (Harrison to Faries, May 15, 2019).

  68. 68. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. 1.

  69. 69. Meuwissen, Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, cat. no. 53. Ilja Veldman also accepts Faries’s proposal of this influence; see Veldman, “Young Heemskerck,” 201, as does Harrison (see note 67). The Calvary also influenced several views of a crucified Christ seen on a diagonal in the sketchbook that was kept from about 1520 to 1535 by Jacob Cornelisz’s grandson, Cornelis Anthonisz; see Ilona van Tuinen, with a contribution by Daantje Meuwissen, Het vroegste Amsterdamse schetsboek: Een zestiende-eeuws zakboekje uit het atelier van Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, ed. by Andrea van Leerdam and Daantje Meuwissen (Oostszaan: Stichting Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, 2014), fo. 6v.

  70. 70. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. A1.

  71. 71. Krueger, Mittelalter und Neuzeit, 91. Van Run, Altaarstukken, 35, noted no discontinuities under ultraviolet light, and infrared reflectography (taken by Molly Faries and J. R. J.van Asperen de Boer, November 24, 1979) showed light reinforcing in some of the letters and numbers. Neither technique indicates that the signature and date were added later.

  72. 72. As a recent example, see Maryan W. Ainsworth, Stijn Alsteens, Nadine Orenstein, and Lorne Campbell, Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance, The Complete Works, exh. cat. (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2010), cat. nos. 21 and 27.

  73. 73. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. 22; Henri Defoer and Ilja Veldman in H. L. M. Defoer, J. Dijkstra, X. van Eck, T. G. Kootte et al., Goddelijk geschilderd: Honderd meesterwerken van Museum Catharijneconvent (Zwolle: Waanders, 2003), 99.

  74. 74. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. 42.

  75. 75. Harrison, 775–76.

  76. 76. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 78. The Alteration refers to the transition from a Catholic to a Protestant government in Amsterdam. Despite the fact that almost all the cities in Holland and Zeeland had joined with the Prince of Orange in the revolt against Spain, the strict Catholic city government of Amsterdam remained loyal to Philip II. In 1576, the southern and northern provinces were united under the Pacification of Ghent with the intention of driving out the Spanish troops. Under the provisions of the treaty, most provinces granted universal freedom of religion, but Holland and Zeeland forbade Catholicism and permitted only the celebration of Protestant services, with the exception of a few cities, such as Amsterdam. That exception had to be negotiated and confirmed, but talks between the States of Holland and the Amsterdam city government dragged on, leading to an attempted coup by impatient Protestants returning from exile and a delegation from Holland. On May 26, 1578, members of civic guards gathered together with a large crowd on the Dam square and dragged the burgomasters and other officials from the city hall or their homes. They were brought to the Damrak and, from there, placed on ships and sent into exile. That moment marked the end of Catholic rule, and Protestantism became the official religion. For the Alteration in Amsterdam, see Van Nierop, “Van Wonderjaar tot Alteratie,” 1:477–81; and S. A. C. Dudok van Heel, Van Amsterdamse burgers tot Europese aristocraten, (The Hague: Koninklijk Nederlandsch Genootschap voor Geslacht- en Wapenkunde, 2008), 1:87–88.

  77. 77. Molly Faries, “Les retables de Marchiennes dans l’oeuvre de Jan van Scorel,” in La renaissance de Jan van Scorel: Les retables de Marchiennes, exh. cat. (Paris: Fondation Custodia, 2011), 18n7.

  78. 78. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 86–88.

  79. 79. Hessel Miedema, “Over de betrouwbaarheid van Karel van Mander,” Colloquium Neerlandicum 11 (1991): 267–86, https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_han001199101_01/_han001199101_01_0022.php.

  80. 80. The Opmeer text was published in 1611; see Bruyn, “Gegevens over chronologie,” 202–3: “Admirabatur supra modum Joannes Christophorus Stella tabulam in aede D[ivi] Nicolai, quam IOANNES SCHORELIUS summa arte pinxerat (in qua conspiciebatur a sinistra CHRISTI latro; cuius spinam dorsi simul et pectus videre licebat).” The quote recalls paragone arguments for sculpture’s superiority over painting, because it could be viewed from all sides.

  81. 81. Bruyn, 204.

  82. 82. For Scorel’s use of natural ultramarine, see Faries, “Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique,” 34–35.

  83. 83. The author was responsible for technical research and conservation of the paint layers and research on the frame, while Jean-Albert Glatigny, independent conservator of panel paintings, Royal Institute of Cultural Heritage, Brussels, treated structural elements of the wing panels and frames. The paint layers on the frames were not treated.

  84. 84. The lower right corner on the front gives away this intervention because the flat surface of the added strip diverges slightly from the profile of the molding. It is possible that the original right and left edges of the center frame had to be replaced.

  85. 85. See notes 47 and 49.

  86. 86. Report by Jean-Albert Glatigny, April 2008, on file at the Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht.

  87. 87. The traces of paint were rose, corresponding to one of the first paint layers on the colored frame.

  88. 88. The joint corresponds in most respects to type 7, published in Hélène Verougstraete, Frames and Supports in 15th- and 16th-century Southern Netherlandish Painting (Brussels: Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, 2015), 52, http://org.kikirpa.be/frames.

  89. 89. J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer, “A Technical Examination of the Frame of Engebrechtsz’s ‘Crucifixion,’” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 26 (1975): 84.

  90. 90. Interestingly, the frieze of the original frame of Scorel’s newly identified Portrait of Joost Aemsz van der Burch may have been marbled in red and green. See Molly Faries and Matthias Ubl, “A New Attribution to Jan van Scorel: The Portrait of Joost Aemsz van der Burch and the Artist’s Portrayals of ‘Great Lords of the Netherlands,’” The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 65, no. 4 (2017): 367 (in the appendix with information by Hubert Baija, the Rijksmuseum’s senior conservator of frames).

  91. 91. In 2008, there were no resources available for further examination by means of cross-sections or for further treatment to reveal the overall polychromy of the frames.

Ainsworth, Maryan W., Stijn Alsteens, Nadine Orenstein, and Lorne Campbell. Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance, The Complete Works. Exh. cat. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2010.

van Asperen de Boer, J. R. J. “A Technical Examination of the Frame of Engebrechtsz’s ‘Crucifixion.’” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 26 (1975): 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1163/22145966-90000690

Brom, G. “Kerksieraden van Oudmunster.” Archief voor de geschiedenis van het aartsbisdom Utrecht 27 (1901): 377–99.

Bruyn, J. “Enige gegevens over de chronologie van het werk van Jan van Scorel.” Oud Holland 70 (1955): 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501755×00335

Defoer, H. L. M., J. Dijkstra, X. van Eck, T. G. Kootte, et al. Goddelijk geschilderd: Honderd meesterwerken van Museum Catharijneconvent. Zwolle: Waanders, 2003.

Dudok van Heel, S. A. C. Van Amsterdamse burgers tot Europese aristocraten. The Hague: Koninklijk Nederlandsch Genootschap voor Geslacht- en Wapenkunde, 2008.

———. “Het hoogaltaar in de Oude Kerk door Jan van Scorel en Maerten van Heemskerck 1525–1537–1566: van drieluik tot zevenluik.” Jaarboek van het Genootschap Amstelodamum 110 (2018): 54–89.

Dudok van Heel, S. A. C., with contributions by W. J. van den Berg. “De schilders Jacob Cornelisz. alias Jacob War en Cornelis Buys uit Oostzaan, hun werkplaatsen in Amsterdam en Alkmaar.” De Nederlandsche Leeuw 128 (2011): 49–79.

Faries, Molly. “Attributing the Layers of Maarten van Heemskerck’s Cologne Lamentation.” In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture, Colloque X: Le dessin sous-jacent dans la process de création. Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut supérieur d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art, Document de travail no. 28, edited by Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 133–41. Louvain-la-Neuve: Collège Erasme, 1995.

———. “Jan van Scorel: Additional Documents from the Church Records of Utrecht.” Oud Holland 85 (1970): 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501770×00013

———. “Jan van Scorel’s Clerical Patronage.” Bollettino d’arte, Supplemento al fasc. N. 100 (1997): 107–16.

———. “Jan van Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique.” In Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, Catalogue of Paintings, 1363–1600, Centraal Museum Utrecht, edited by Molly Faries and Liesbeth M. Helmus, 22–42. Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 2011.

———. “Les retables de Marchiennes dans l’oeuvre de Jan van Scorel.” In La renaissance de Jan van Scorel: Les retables de Marchiennes, 17–36. Exh. cat. Paris: Fondation Custodia, 2011.

———. “Underdrawings in the Workshop Production of Jan van Scorel: A Study with Infrared Reflectography.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 26 (1975): 89–228. https://doi.org/10.1163/22145966-90000691

———. “The Vienna Wing Panels by Geertgen tot Sint Jans and His Drawing and Painting Technique.” Oud Holland 23, no. 3–4 (2010): 187–219. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501710796167608

———. “Die Werkstaat Jan van Scorels in Haarlem.” In Künstlerwerkstätten der Renaissance, edited by Roberto Cassanelli, 297–309. Milan: Editoriale Jaca Book, 1998.

Faries, Molly, and Daantje Meuwissen. “Identifying Two Family Members in Jacob Cornelisz’s Amsterdam Workshop: Cornelis Buys and Cornelis Anthonisz.” In Technical Studies of Paintings: Problems of Attribution (15th–17th Centuries). Edited by Anne Dubois, Jacqueline Couvert, and Till-Holger Borchert, 298–308. Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2018. Originally presented at the Nineteenth Symposium for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting held in Bruges, September 11–13, 2014.

Faries, Molly, and Martha Wolff. “Landscape in the Early Paintings of Jan van Scorel.” The Burlington Magazine 138 (November 1996): 724–33.

Faries, Molly, and Matthias Ubl. “A New Attribution to Jan van Scorel: The Portrait of Joost Aemsz van der Burch and the Artist’s Portrayals of ‘Great Lords of the Netherlands.’” The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 65, no. 4 (2017): 354–71.

Faries, Molly, Christa Steinbüchel, and J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer. “Maarten van Heemskerck and Jan van Scorel’s Haarlem Workshop.” In Historical Painting Techniques, Materials, and Studio Practice, Preprints of a Symposium, University of Leiden, The Netherlands, 26–29 June 1995, edited by Arie Wallert, Erma Hermens, and Marja Peek, 135–39. Marina Del Rey, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1995. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/historical_painting.

Filedt Kok, J. P. “Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, The Holy Family, c. 1528–c. 1530.” In J. P. Filedt Kok, ed., Early Netherlandish Paintings, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, accessed March 31, 2019. hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.461060.

Harrison, Jefferson Cabell. “The Detroit Christ on Calvary and the Cologne Lamentation of Christ: Two Early Haarlem Paintings by Maerten van Heemskerck.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 37 (1986): 175–94. https://doi.org/10.1163/22145966-90000709

———. The Paintings of Maerten van Heemskerck: A Catalogue Raisonné. PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1987.

Helmus, Liesbeth M. Schilderen in opdracht: Noord-Nederlandse contracten voor altaarstukken 1485–1570. PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 2010.

Hoogewerff, G. J. Jan van Scorel: Peintre de la Renaissance hollandaise. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1923.

Hoven van Genderen, Bram van den. De Heren van de Kerk, de kanunniken van Oudmunster te Utrecht in de late middeleeuwen. Zutphen: Walburg Press, 2003.

Krueger, Ingeborg. “Jan van Scorel (Umkreis), Kalvarienberg, 1530.” In Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, Kunst und Kunsthandwerk: Mittelalter und Neuzeit, 89–92. Kunst und Altertum am Rhein, no. 69. Cologne: Rheinland, 1977.

Meuwissen, Daantje. Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen (ca. 1475–1533): De Renaissance in Amsterdam en Alkmaar. Exh. cat. Zwolle: Waanders, 2014.

Miedema, Hessel, ed., Karel van Mander: The Lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters, vol. 1. Doornspijk: Davaco, 1994.

———. “Over de betrouwbaarheid van Karel van Mander.” Colloquium Neerlandicum 11 (1991): 267–86. https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_han001199101_01/_han001199101_01_0022.php.

———. “Vakonderwijs aan kunstschilders in de Nederlanden.” Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 5–6 (1986–87): 168–82.

van Nierop, Henk. “Van Wonderjaar tot Alteratie, 1566–1578.” In Geschiedenis van Amsterdam: Een stad uit het niets tot 1578, edited by Marijke Carasso-Kok, 1:451–81. Amsterdam: Sun, 2004.

Peeters, Natasja, with the collaboration of Max Martens. “Assistants in Artists’ Workshops in the Southern Netherlands, overview of the archive sources.” In Invisible Hands? The Role and Status of the Painter’s Journeymen in the Low Countries c. 1450–c. 1650, edited by Natasja Peeters, 33–49. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.

van Run, Tatjana. Altaarstukken met het lijden van Christus in serieproductie: Een onderzoek naar de hand van de meester en zijn leerlingen. B.A. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2008.

Thomas, Anabel. The Painter’s Practice in Renaissance Tuscany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

van Tuinen, Ilona, with a contribution by Daantje Meuwissen. Het vroegste Amsterdamse schetsboek: Een zestiende-eeuws zakboekje uit het atelier van Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen. Edited by Andrea van Leerdam and Daantje Meuwissen. Oostszaan: Stichting Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, 2014.

Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, Catalogue of Paintings, 1363–1600, Centraal Museum Utrecht, edited by Molly Faries and Liesbeth M. Helmus. Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 2011.

Veldman, Ilja. “Adaptation, Emulation and Innovation: Scorel, Gossaert and Other Artists as a Source of Inspiration for the Young Heemskerck.” Oud Holland 132 (2019): 171–208.

Verougstraete, Hélène. Frames and Supports in 15th- and 16th-century Southern Netherlandish Painting. Brussels: Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, 2015. http://org.kikirpa.be/frames.

List of Illustrations

Fig. 1 Attributed to Cornelis Buys IV (Cornelis Jacobsz), Rest on the Flight into Egypt, ca. 1525–30, oil on panel, 88.4 x 69.5 cm. Private collection, Spain (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Attributed to Dirck Jacobsz, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, 1526
Fig. 2 Attributed to Dirck Jacobsz, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, 1526, center panel of a triptych, 110 x 68 cm. Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart, inv. no. GVL 61a [side-by-side viewer]
Reconstruction of the high altar by Jan van Scorel
Fig. 3 Reconstruction of the high altar by Jan van Scorel. After Dudok van Heel, fig. 11a. [side-by-side viewer]
After Jan van Scorel, Crucifixion Triptych, c. 1550–75
Fig. 4 After Jan van Scorel, Crucifixion Triptych, c. 1550–75, oil on panel, middle panel 97.5 x 76 cm, wings 97 x 38.5 cm. Kathedraal Museum Nieuwe Bavo, Haarlem. Photo: Arend Velsink [side-by-side viewer]
After Jan van Scorel, Crucifixion, 1530
Fig. 5 After Jan van Scorel, Crucifixion, 1530, oil on panel, 123.5 x 120.5 cm. Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Bonn. Photo: digital composite by Molly Faries [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Scorel and workshop, Carrying of the Cross, ca. 1530
Fig. 6 Jan van Scorel and workshop, Carrying of the Cross, ca. 1530, oil on panel, 48.3 x 32.9 cm. Private collection, New York. Photo: courtesy Haboldt & Co. [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of Christ figure in fig. 6
Fig. 7a Detail of Christ figure in fig. 6. Photo: courtesy Haboldt & Co. [side-by-side viewer]
Corresponding infrared reflectogram digital composite showing underdrawing
Fig. 7b Corresponding infrared reflectogram digital composite showing underdrawing. IRR: © Stichting RKD [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Scorel and workshop, Crucifixion Triptych, ca. 1530
Fig. 8 Jan van Scorel and workshop, Crucifixion Triptych, ca. 1530 (middle panel) and ca. 1540 (left and right interior wings, Carrying of the Cross and Resurrection), oil on panel, middle panel 130 x 116 cm, wings 130 x 48 cm each. Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht. Photo: Ruben de Heer [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Scorel and workshop, Crucifixion Triptych, exterior wings: Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane with Carthusian Donors and Flagellation of Christ, ca. 1540
Fig. 9 Jan van Scorel and workshop, Crucifixion Triptych, exterior wings: Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane with Carthusian Donors and Flagellation of Christ, ca. 1540, oil on panel, 130 x 48 cm each. Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht. Photo: Ruben de Heer [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of Flagellation in fig. 9
Fig. 10a Detail of Flagellation in fig. 9. Photo: Ruben de Heer [side-by-side viewer]
Corresponding infrared reflectogram digital composite showing underdrawing
Fig. 10b Corresponding infrared reflectogram digital composite showing underdrawing. IRR: © Stichting RKD [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of reconstruction with omitted right edge of inner left wing
Fig. 11 Detail of reconstruction with omitted right edge of inner left wing. Photo: digital composite by Molly Faries [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Scorel, The Lokhorst Triptych: Entrance of Christ into Jerusalem, middle panel and interior wings, ca. 1526
Fig. 12 Jan van Scorel, The Lokhorst Triptych: Entrance of Christ into Jerusalem, middle panel and interior wings, ca. 1526, oil on panel, 95.7 x 323.5 cm (open) (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Jan van Scorel and workshop, Adoration of the Magi, ca. 1530–35, National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, NGI 997
Fig. 13 Jan van Scorel and workshop, Adoration of the Magi, ca. 1530–35, oil on panel, 93.3 x 74.8 cm. National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, NGI 997. Photo © National Gallery of Ireland [side-by-side viewer]
Maarten van Heemskerck, Christ on Calvary, ca. 1527–29, Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit
Fig. 14 Maarten van Heemskerck, Christ on Calvary, ca. 1527–29, oil on panel, 38 x 34.2 cm. Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, USA Founders Society Purchase. Photo: Julius H. Haass fund/Bridgeman Images [side-by-side viewer]
Maarten van Heemskerck (seventeenth-century copy after?), Lamentation with Donor
Fig. 15 Maarten van Heemskerck (seventeenth-century copy after?), Lamentation with Donor, oil on canvas, 262.5 x 197.5 cm. Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht, inv. no. BMH s360. Photo: Ruben de Heer [side-by-side viewer]
Jacob Cornelisz, Crucifixion, ca. 1524
Fig. 16 Jacob Cornelisz, Crucifixion, ca. 1524, oil on panel, 66.5 x 54 cm. Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Ghent (artwork in the public domain) [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 5: signature and date
Fig. 17 Detail of fig. 5: signature and date. Photo: J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer [side-by-side viewer]
Maarten van Heemskerck, Crucifixion, 1540, (middle panel of polyptych), Cathedral, Linköping, Sweden
Fig. 18 Maarten van Heemskerck, Crucifixion, 1540, oil on panel (middle panel of polyptych), 570 x 385 cm. Cathedral, Linköping, Sweden. Photo: René Gerritsen Art Research Photography [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 5: light blue and light green background mountains
Fig. 19 Detail of fig. 5: light blue and light green background mountains. Photo: J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 8: original hinge
Fig. 20 Detail of fig. 8: original hinge. Photo: Caroline van der Elst [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 9: open joint of wing frame
Fig. 21 Detail of fig. 9: open joint of wing frame. Photo: Jean-Albert Glatigny [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 8: polychromy of center frame
Fig. 22 Detail of fig. 8: polychromy of center frame. Photo: Caroline van der Elst [side-by-side viewer]
Detail of fig. 9: polychromy of wing frame
Fig. 23 Detail of fig. 9: polychromy of wing frame. Photo: Caroline van der Elst [side-by-side viewer]

Footnotes

  1. 1. Hessel Miedema, ed., Karel van Mander: The Lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters, vol. 1 (Doornspijk: Davaco, 1994), fo. 236r. Scorel’s altarpiece was destroyed during the Iconoclasm in Amsterdam, on August 23, 1566. The destruction of images in chapels and churches spread rapidly after the first outbreaks in southwest Flanders at the beginning of August, 1566, reaching Antwerp by August 20. In less than two days’ time, the strict Catholic city government of Amsterdam had already heard what had happened in Antwerp and allowed images and precious objects to be removed from churches and brought to safety. Some were taken from chapels and altars belonging to the guilds, whose members protested and had the images replaced. Unrest increased and disturbances arose in the Nieuwe and Oude Kerk. The unruly crowd was calmed in the Nieuwe Kerk but not in the Oude Kerk. There the angry mob continued to destroy the interior, even chasing away the men who had been sent by the sheriff. Finally, members of the civic guards persuaded the mob to leave the Oude Kerk, but by then the altarpiece by Scorel had been destroyed. For the Iconoclasm in Amsterdam, see Henk van Nierop, “Van Wonderjaar tot Alteratie, 1566–1578,” in Geschiedenis van Amsterdam: Een stad uit het niets tot 1578, ed. Marijke Carasso-Kok (Amsterdam: Sun, 2004), 1:455–58.

  2. 2. Taken from El felicissimo viaie d’el muy alto y muy poderoso Principe Don Phelippe . . . , Antwerp, 1552, fo. 288v, and quoted by J. Bruyn, “Enige gegevens over de chronologie van het werk van Jan van Scorel,” Oud Holland 70 (1955), 202: “hay una pintura d’el mysterio de la passion de Christo, que es la mejor, que hay en todos los Estados de Flandes, hizola Iuan Scorelio Canonigo d’Vtrecht, unico en la pintura por aquellas tierras.

  3. 3. S. A. C. Dudok van Heel, “Het hoogaltaar in de Oude Kerk door Jan van Scorel en Maerten van Heemskerck 1525–1537–1566: Van drieluik tot zevenluik,” Jaarboek van het Genootschap Amstelodamum 110 (2018): 54–89.

  4. 4. Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 236r.

  5. 5. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 56.

  6. 6. Dudok van Heel, 56.

  7. 7. Dudok van Heel, 56–58.

  8. 8.  S. A. C. Dudok van Heel, with contributions by W. J. van den Berg, “De schilders Jacob Cornelisz. alias Jacob War en Cornelis Buys uit Oostzaan, hun werkplaatsen in Amsterdam en Alkmaar,” De Nederlandsche Leeuw 128 (2011): 49–79.

  9. 9. Molly Faries and Daantje Meuwissen, “Identifying Two Family Members in Jacob Cornelisz’s Amsterdam Workshop: Cornelis Buys and Cornelis Anthonisz,” in Technical Studies of Paintings: Problems of Attribution (15th–17th Centuries), ed. Anne Dubois, Jacqueline Couvert and Till-Holger Borchert, 298–303 (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2018). Originally presented at the Nineteenth Symposium for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting held in Bruges, September 11–13, 2014. The monogram on the Stuttgart panel indicates that it derives from Jacob Cornelisz’s shop, but the painting technique and landscape background are typical of Dirck Jacobsz.

  10. 10. Faries and Meuwissen, 302–303.

  11. 11. For this painting, see J. P. Filedt Kok, “Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, The Holy Family, c. 1528–c. 1530,” in J. P. Filedt Kok, ed., Early Netherlandish Paintings, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, accessed March 31, 2019, http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.461060.

  12. 12. Faries and Meuwissen, “Two Family Members,” 303n20. Faries is currently preparing a longer text on this topic for the Phoebus Foundation, Antwerp.

  13. 13. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 58.

  14. 14. A survey of Van Mander yields only two or three instances; see Hessel Miedema, “Vakonderwijs aan kunstschilders in de Nederlanden,” Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 5–6 (1986–87): 271

  15. 15. Natasja Peeters, with the collaboration of Max Martens, “Assistants in Artists’ Workshops in the Southern Netherlands, overview of the archive sources,” in Invisible Hands? The Role and Status of the Painter’s Journeymen in the Low Countries c. 1450–c. 1650, ed. Natasja Peeters (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 42–45. Of course, the establishment of fines indicates that the practice occasionally occurred, and there is also evidence in Italy that assistants sometimes obtained commissions in their own right; see Anabel Thomas, The Painter’s Practice in Renaissance Tuscany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 2, 86–87.

  16. 16. Molly Faries, “Jan van Scorel’s Clerical Patronage,” Bollettino d’arte, Supplemento al fasc. N. 100 (1997): 107–8.

  17. 17. Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 235v.

  18. 18. Molly A. Faries, “Jan van Scorel: Additional Documents from the Church Records of Utrecht,” Oud Holland 85 (1970): 4, 12.

  19. 19. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 58.

  20. 20. 1–2) lost organ wings and lost exterior wings for the high altar of Oudmunster, as discussed in the text proper, 3) Lokhorst Triptych, 4) a now-lost Baptism dated 1525, once in the Janskerk; see G. J.Hoogewerff, Jan van Scorel: Peintre de la Renaissance hollandaise (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1923), 52; 5) two panels with Twelve Members of the Utrecht Brotherhood of Jerusalem Pilgrims, 6) lost wings for the high altar of the Mariakerk, described by Van Mander; see Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 236r.

  21. 21. Faries, “Additional documents,” 4, 12.

  22. 22. The “four large pieces in watercolor, in the manner of Scorel” listed in the inventory “Eerst vier stucken van waterverff groot zijnde, wesende van de handelinge van Schorel,” published in G. Brom, “Kerksieraden van Oudmunster,” Archief voor de geschiedenis van het aartsbisdom Utrecht 27 (1901): 395, refer in all probability to tüchlein—i.e., canvases painted in a glue medium, a technique often employed for organ wings—and correspond to the unspecified watercolors that Van Mander says Scorel painted for Herman van Lokhorst just after he returned from Italy. See Molly Faries, “Jan van Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique,” in Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, Catalogue of Paintings, 1363–1600, Centraal Museum Utrecht, ed. Molly Faries and Liesbeth M. Helmus (Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 2011), 25.

  23. 23. Bram van den Hoven van Genderen, De Heren van de Kerk, de kanunniken van Oudmunster te Utrecht in de late middeleeuwen (Zutphen: Walburg Press, 2003), 509–10.

  24. 24. For these group portraits, see Faries in Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, cat. nos. 21a–b.

  25. 25. Faries, “Additional Documents,” 12–13.

  26. 26. For Scorel and the guild, see Molly Faries, “Underdrawings in the Workshop Production of Jan van Scorel: A Study with Infrared Reflectography,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 26 (1975): 90–91.

  27. 27. Also arguing against Scorel’s presumed stay in Amsterdam is the fact that Jacob Cornelisz, perhaps assisted in the landscape by his son, Dirck Jacobsz, as Henri Defoer believes, based his view of Jerusalem in the c. 1525–30 Temptation of Christ (Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen) on Erhard Reuwich’s woodcut in Bernard von Breydenbach’s Peregrinatio in terram sanctam (1486) rather than the topographical sketches of Jerusalem that Scorel brought back from his travels. The sketches would probably have been known to Jacob Cornelisz if Scorel had been lodging with him. For the Aachen painting, see Daantje Meuwissen, Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen (ca. 1475–1533): De Renaissance in Amsterdam en Alkmaar, exh. cat. (Zwolle: Waanders, 2014), cat. no 58.

  28. 28. Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 236r.

  29. 29. Liesbeth M. Helmus, Schilderen in opdracht: Noord-Nederlandse contracten voor altaarstukken 1485–1570 (PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 2010), 132.

  30. 30. Helmus, 418: “te schilderen die vier zyden van de twee binnenste deuren . . . de twee binnenzyden van de buytenste deurren.”

  31. 31. Jefferson Cabell Harrison, The Paintings of Maerten van Heemskerck: A Catalogue Raisonné (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1987), 333.

  32. 32. Faries, “Additional Documents,” 21.

  33. 33. In an unpublished document (“Het Utrechts Archief, Kapittel van Sint Marie te Utrecht” [no. 221], S. Marie no. 12, fo. 166v, dated April 14, 1535), the chapter of the Mariakerk authorized Jan van Scorel to present a letter to Karel van Egmond, Duke of Guelders, concerning the return of the chapter’s unicorn horn. For more on this escapade, see Hoven van Genderen, De Heren van de Kerk, 620.

  34. 34. Scorel promised to negotiate in 1535, and meetings continued to 1541–42; see Faries, “Additional documents,” 18–19.

  35. 35. In the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; the museum’s website has a good illustration of the altarpiece with the inner wings closed and the outer wings open: https://www.khm.at/en/visit/collections.

  36. 36. Faries, “Underdrawings in the Workshop Production of Jan van Scorel,” 113–14. The museum’s website has good illustrations of all the panels of the polyptych: https://webmuseo.com/ws/musenor/app/collection.

  37. 37. Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 246r.

  38. 38. Faries, “Underdrawings in the Workshop Production of Jan van Scorel,” 106.

  39. 39. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 76. As yet the only works by Scorel that are known to have served as vidimuses are wash drawings on paper, and there are no known oil sketches as such.

  40. 40. Report by Peter Klein, University of Hamburg, dated April 5, 2004 (this and all subsequently cited reports by Klein are archived at RKD – Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis). The youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1485; the panel could have been ready for use by 1496, but a date in or after 1510 is more likely. Too-early dating occurs in a small percentage of cases in the Scorel group, especially in small panels where there is a greater chance that more recent year rings have been trimmed off.

  41. 41. This panel may represent a typical form of collaboration in which the master executes the layout and an assistant brings the image to completion in paint. However, after comparing the sketchy layout of the Carrying of the Cross with more recent infrared imaging of related works, it is evident that the underdrawing is extremely loose and lacks Scorel’s skilled outlining of bodily forms. The IRR was carried out by Margreet Wolters, Curator of Technical Documentation, RKD, The Hague, on February 19, 2007, using a Hamamatsu C 2400-07 equipped with a N2606 IR vidicon, a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 1:2.8/55 mm lens, a Heliopan RG 850 (or RG 1000) filter, with a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor (625 lines). Digitized documentation is performed with a Meteor RCB framegrabber, 768 x 574 pixels, colorvision toolkit (Visualbasic).

  42. 42. Scorel evolves more diagrammatic underdrawings during the Haarlem period, with long, undulating contours and systematized hatching, often in the form of localized zigzags; see Faries, “Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique,” 37.

  43. 43. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 76 and figs. 6a–b.

  44. 44. Defoer believes that the multifigure versions of the Carrying of the Cross and Resurrection (as in fig. 4) are enlargements of the more compact compositions (as in fig. 9), which are Scorel’s original prototypes. Anomalies were introduced when the compositions were expanded: in the Resurrection, Christ no longer stands on the central axis, and the soldiers no longer overlap each other, as is more typical of Scorel. In the Carrying of the Cross, Veronica was added with the two women above her; she does not look directly at Christ, and she sits, rather than kneels, on the ground. This compositional development contradicts Dudok van Heel’s assumption that figure 6 represents the initial design for the Carrying of the Cross.

  45. 45. For Scorel’s use of squaring, see Faries, “Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique,” 40.

  46. 46. Faries, “Underdrawings in the Workshop Production of Jan van Scorel,” 176–82; and Molly Faries, “Die Werkstaat Jan van Scorels in Haarlem,” in Künstlerwerkstätten der Renaissance, ed. Roberto Cassanelli (Milan: Editoriale Jaca Book, 1998), 306–8. The second donor near the panel’s edge was added in a later paint stage, on top of the paint of the background. The IRR was carried out by Margreet Wolters, Curator of Technical Documentation, RKD, The Hague, and Micha Leeflang, Curator of Medieval Art, Museum Catharijneconvent, September 3–4, 2007, using a Hamamatsu C 2400-07 equipped with a N2606 IR vidicon, a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 1:2.8/55 mm lens, a Heliopan RG 850 (or RG 1000) filter, with a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor (625 lines). Digitized documentation is performed with a Meteor RCB framegrabber, 768 x 574 pixels, colorvision toolkit (Visualbasic).

  47. 47. Faries, “Underdrawings in the workshop production of Jan van Scorel,” 182. Report by Peter Klein, University of Hamburg, April 22, 2008: the youngest heartwood ring in the wings was formed in 1519; the panel could have been ready for use by 1530, but a date around 1536/1544 is more likely, after either two or ten years’ seasoning. Report by Peter Klein, University of Hamburg, June 19, 2001: the youngest heartwood ring in the middle panel was formed in 1500; the panel could have been ready for use by 1511, but a date around 1517/1525 is more likely, after either two or ten years’ seasoning.

  48. 48. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 73, figs. 7a–7b.

  49. 49. Report by Peter Klein, University of Hamburg, April 22, 2008: the youngest heartwood ring in the frame of the wings was formed in 1515 and that of the wing panels in 1519. Klein found seventeenth-century year rings in the frame of the middle panel (report dated June 19, 2001), but these derive from a board that was added as a later reinforcement; see Appendix.

  50. 50. By contrast, the frame of the triptych formerly in the Begijnhof requires further study; the wings only close over the middle panel because their frames are wider at the top and thinner on the sides. The difference in figure scale between the wings and middle panel may indicate, in this case, that the panels do not belong together.

  51. 51. Both panels in figure 11 appear to include a structure indicating the Dome of the Rock, a repetition that would contradict space meant to be continuous.

  52. 52. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 77.

  53. 53. Ingeborg Krueger, “Jan van Scorel (Umkreis), Kalvarienberg, 1530,” in Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, Kunst und Kunsthandwerk: Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Kunst und Altertum am Rhein, no. 69 (Cologne: Rheinland, 1977), 92. Tatjana van Run came to the same conclusion when she re-measured the panel; see Tatjana van Run, Altaarstukken met het lijden van Christus in serieproductie: Een onderzoek naar de hand van de meester en zijn leerlingen (B.A. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2008), 32. On November 24, 1979, Molly Faries and J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer examined the Bonn panel out of its frame. They found pencil lines along the curve of the cut upper corners (probably a guide for the sawing) and noted that the wings of the angels at the top of the composition were just slightly cut off in the underdrawing, suggesting that the top had only been trimmed slightly.

  54. 54. Van Run, Altaarstukken, 31–32, found a copy of Scorel’s Resurrection wing still at the original location; its shape was also originally rectangular.

  55. 55. For the Lokhorst Triptych, see Faries in Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, cat. no. 22.

  56. 56. Molly Faries and Martha Wolff, “Landscape in the Early Paintings of Jan van Scorel,” The Burlington Magazine 138 (November 1996): 724–33.

  57. 57. For the Adoration, see Helmus in Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, cat. no. 30.

  58. 58. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 55, 65.

  59. 59. For this point, see Molly Faries, “The Vienna Wing Panels by Geertgen tot Sint Jans and His Drawing and Painting Technique,” Oud Holland 23, no. 3–4 (2010): 214.

  60. 60. Miedema, Van Mander: Lives, fo. 245r.

  61. 61. See note 4. Ilja Veldman has proposed that Heemskerck could have resided in the house that Scorel rented for himself and his Haarlem mistress, Agatha van Schoonhoven; see Ilja Veldman, “Adaptation, Emulation and Innovation: Scorel, Gossaert and Other Artists as a Source of Inspiration for the Young Heemskerck,” Oud Holland,132 (2019): 177.

  62. 62. See, for instance, Faries, “Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique,” 37.

  63. 63. Jefferson Cabell Harrison, “The Detroit Christ on Calvary and the Cologne Lamentation of Christ: Two Early Haarlem Paintings by Maerten van Heemskerck,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 37 (1986): 175.

  64. 64. Molly Faries, “Attributing the Layers of Maarten van Heemskerck’s Cologne Lamentation,” in Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture, Colloque X: Le dessin sous-jacent dans la process de création, Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut supérieur d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art, Document de travail no. 28, ed. Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq (Louvain-la-Neuve: Collège Erasme, 1995), 133–41; and Molly Faries, Christa Steinbüchel and J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer, “Maarten van Heemskerck and Jan van Scorel’s Haarlem Workshop,” in Historical Painting Techniques, Materials, and Studio Practice, preprints of a symposium, University of Leiden, The Netherlands, 26-29 June 1995, ed. Arie Wallert, Erma Hermens, and Marja Peek (Marina Del Rey, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1995), 135–39. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/historical_painting

  65. 65. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. 1, dated c. 1527–29. See also Veldman, “Young Heemskerck,” 177–79.

  66. 66. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. A1.

  67. 67. Harrison gives two opinions: in his 1986 publication (Harrison, “The Detroit Christ on Calvary,” 181–82), he sees the influence of Scorel’s Crucifixion; but in his 1987 dissertation (Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. 1), he does not. Harrison now believes Jacob Cornelisz’s Ghent Calvary is the more immediate source for Heemskerck (Harrison to Faries, May 15, 2019).

  68. 68. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. 1.

  69. 69. Meuwissen, Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, cat. no. 53. Ilja Veldman also accepts Faries’s proposal of this influence; see Veldman, “Young Heemskerck,” 201, as does Harrison (see note 67). The Calvary also influenced several views of a crucified Christ seen on a diagonal in the sketchbook that was kept from about 1520 to 1535 by Jacob Cornelisz’s grandson, Cornelis Anthonisz; see Ilona van Tuinen, with a contribution by Daantje Meuwissen, Het vroegste Amsterdamse schetsboek: Een zestiende-eeuws zakboekje uit het atelier van Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, ed. by Andrea van Leerdam and Daantje Meuwissen (Oostszaan: Stichting Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, 2014), fo. 6v.

  70. 70. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. A1.

  71. 71. Krueger, Mittelalter und Neuzeit, 91. Van Run, Altaarstukken, 35, noted no discontinuities under ultraviolet light, and infrared reflectography (taken by Molly Faries and J. R. J.van Asperen de Boer, November 24, 1979) showed light reinforcing in some of the letters and numbers. Neither technique indicates that the signature and date were added later.

  72. 72. As a recent example, see Maryan W. Ainsworth, Stijn Alsteens, Nadine Orenstein, and Lorne Campbell, Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance, The Complete Works, exh. cat. (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2010), cat. nos. 21 and 27.

  73. 73. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. 22; Henri Defoer and Ilja Veldman in H. L. M. Defoer, J. Dijkstra, X. van Eck, T. G. Kootte et al., Goddelijk geschilderd: Honderd meesterwerken van Museum Catharijneconvent (Zwolle: Waanders, 2003), 99.

  74. 74. Harrison, Paintings of Heemskerck, cat. no. 42.

  75. 75. Harrison, 775–76.

  76. 76. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 78. The Alteration refers to the transition from a Catholic to a Protestant government in Amsterdam. Despite the fact that almost all the cities in Holland and Zeeland had joined with the Prince of Orange in the revolt against Spain, the strict Catholic city government of Amsterdam remained loyal to Philip II. In 1576, the southern and northern provinces were united under the Pacification of Ghent with the intention of driving out the Spanish troops. Under the provisions of the treaty, most provinces granted universal freedom of religion, but Holland and Zeeland forbade Catholicism and permitted only the celebration of Protestant services, with the exception of a few cities, such as Amsterdam. That exception had to be negotiated and confirmed, but talks between the States of Holland and the Amsterdam city government dragged on, leading to an attempted coup by impatient Protestants returning from exile and a delegation from Holland. On May 26, 1578, members of civic guards gathered together with a large crowd on the Dam square and dragged the burgomasters and other officials from the city hall or their homes. They were brought to the Damrak and, from there, placed on ships and sent into exile. That moment marked the end of Catholic rule, and Protestantism became the official religion. For the Alteration in Amsterdam, see Van Nierop, “Van Wonderjaar tot Alteratie,” 1:477–81; and S. A. C. Dudok van Heel, Van Amsterdamse burgers tot Europese aristocraten, (The Hague: Koninklijk Nederlandsch Genootschap voor Geslacht- en Wapenkunde, 2008), 1:87–88.

  77. 77. Molly Faries, “Les retables de Marchiennes dans l’oeuvre de Jan van Scorel,” in La renaissance de Jan van Scorel: Les retables de Marchiennes, exh. cat. (Paris: Fondation Custodia, 2011), 18n7.

  78. 78. Dudok van Heel, “Hoogaltaar,” 86–88.

  79. 79. Hessel Miedema, “Over de betrouwbaarheid van Karel van Mander,” Colloquium Neerlandicum 11 (1991): 267–86, https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_han001199101_01/_han001199101_01_0022.php.

  80. 80. The Opmeer text was published in 1611; see Bruyn, “Gegevens over chronologie,” 202–3: “Admirabatur supra modum Joannes Christophorus Stella tabulam in aede D[ivi] Nicolai, quam IOANNES SCHORELIUS summa arte pinxerat (in qua conspiciebatur a sinistra CHRISTI latro; cuius spinam dorsi simul et pectus videre licebat).” The quote recalls paragone arguments for sculpture’s superiority over painting, because it could be viewed from all sides.

  81. 81. Bruyn, 204.

  82. 82. For Scorel’s use of natural ultramarine, see Faries, “Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique,” 34–35.

  83. 83. The author was responsible for technical research and conservation of the paint layers and research on the frame, while Jean-Albert Glatigny, independent conservator of panel paintings, Royal Institute of Cultural Heritage, Brussels, treated structural elements of the wing panels and frames. The paint layers on the frames were not treated.

  84. 84. The lower right corner on the front gives away this intervention because the flat surface of the added strip diverges slightly from the profile of the molding. It is possible that the original right and left edges of the center frame had to be replaced.

  85. 85. See notes 47 and 49.

  86. 86. Report by Jean-Albert Glatigny, April 2008, on file at the Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht.

  87. 87. The traces of paint were rose, corresponding to one of the first paint layers on the colored frame.

  88. 88. The joint corresponds in most respects to type 7, published in Hélène Verougstraete, Frames and Supports in 15th- and 16th-century Southern Netherlandish Painting (Brussels: Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, 2015), 52, http://org.kikirpa.be/frames.

  89. 89. J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer, “A Technical Examination of the Frame of Engebrechtsz’s ‘Crucifixion,’” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 26 (1975): 84.

  90. 90. Interestingly, the frieze of the original frame of Scorel’s newly identified Portrait of Joost Aemsz van der Burch may have been marbled in red and green. See Molly Faries and Matthias Ubl, “A New Attribution to Jan van Scorel: The Portrait of Joost Aemsz van der Burch and the Artist’s Portrayals of ‘Great Lords of the Netherlands,’” The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 65, no. 4 (2017): 367 (in the appendix with information by Hubert Baija, the Rijksmuseum’s senior conservator of frames).

  91. 91. In 2008, there were no resources available for further examination by means of cross-sections or for further treatment to reveal the overall polychromy of the frames.

Bibliography

Ainsworth, Maryan W., Stijn Alsteens, Nadine Orenstein, and Lorne Campbell. Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance, The Complete Works. Exh. cat. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2010.

van Asperen de Boer, J. R. J. “A Technical Examination of the Frame of Engebrechtsz’s ‘Crucifixion.’” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 26 (1975): 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1163/22145966-90000690

Brom, G. “Kerksieraden van Oudmunster.” Archief voor de geschiedenis van het aartsbisdom Utrecht 27 (1901): 377–99.

Bruyn, J. “Enige gegevens over de chronologie van het werk van Jan van Scorel.” Oud Holland 70 (1955): 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501755×00335

Defoer, H. L. M., J. Dijkstra, X. van Eck, T. G. Kootte, et al. Goddelijk geschilderd: Honderd meesterwerken van Museum Catharijneconvent. Zwolle: Waanders, 2003.

Dudok van Heel, S. A. C. Van Amsterdamse burgers tot Europese aristocraten. The Hague: Koninklijk Nederlandsch Genootschap voor Geslacht- en Wapenkunde, 2008.

———. “Het hoogaltaar in de Oude Kerk door Jan van Scorel en Maerten van Heemskerck 1525–1537–1566: van drieluik tot zevenluik.” Jaarboek van het Genootschap Amstelodamum 110 (2018): 54–89.

Dudok van Heel, S. A. C., with contributions by W. J. van den Berg. “De schilders Jacob Cornelisz. alias Jacob War en Cornelis Buys uit Oostzaan, hun werkplaatsen in Amsterdam en Alkmaar.” De Nederlandsche Leeuw 128 (2011): 49–79.

Faries, Molly. “Attributing the Layers of Maarten van Heemskerck’s Cologne Lamentation.” In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture, Colloque X: Le dessin sous-jacent dans la process de création. Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut supérieur d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art, Document de travail no. 28, edited by Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 133–41. Louvain-la-Neuve: Collège Erasme, 1995.

———. “Jan van Scorel: Additional Documents from the Church Records of Utrecht.” Oud Holland 85 (1970): 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501770×00013

———. “Jan van Scorel’s Clerical Patronage.” Bollettino d’arte, Supplemento al fasc. N. 100 (1997): 107–16.

———. “Jan van Scorel’s Drawing and Painting Technique.” In Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, Catalogue of Paintings, 1363–1600, Centraal Museum Utrecht, edited by Molly Faries and Liesbeth M. Helmus, 22–42. Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 2011.

———. “Les retables de Marchiennes dans l’oeuvre de Jan van Scorel.” In La renaissance de Jan van Scorel: Les retables de Marchiennes, 17–36. Exh. cat. Paris: Fondation Custodia, 2011.

———. “Underdrawings in the Workshop Production of Jan van Scorel: A Study with Infrared Reflectography.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 26 (1975): 89–228. https://doi.org/10.1163/22145966-90000691

———. “The Vienna Wing Panels by Geertgen tot Sint Jans and His Drawing and Painting Technique.” Oud Holland 23, no. 3–4 (2010): 187–219. https://doi.org/10.1163/187501710796167608

———. “Die Werkstaat Jan van Scorels in Haarlem.” In Künstlerwerkstätten der Renaissance, edited by Roberto Cassanelli, 297–309. Milan: Editoriale Jaca Book, 1998.

Faries, Molly, and Daantje Meuwissen. “Identifying Two Family Members in Jacob Cornelisz’s Amsterdam Workshop: Cornelis Buys and Cornelis Anthonisz.” In Technical Studies of Paintings: Problems of Attribution (15th–17th Centuries). Edited by Anne Dubois, Jacqueline Couvert, and Till-Holger Borchert, 298–308. Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2018. Originally presented at the Nineteenth Symposium for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting held in Bruges, September 11–13, 2014.

Faries, Molly, and Martha Wolff. “Landscape in the Early Paintings of Jan van Scorel.” The Burlington Magazine 138 (November 1996): 724–33.

Faries, Molly, and Matthias Ubl. “A New Attribution to Jan van Scorel: The Portrait of Joost Aemsz van der Burch and the Artist’s Portrayals of ‘Great Lords of the Netherlands.’” The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 65, no. 4 (2017): 354–71.

Faries, Molly, Christa Steinbüchel, and J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer. “Maarten van Heemskerck and Jan van Scorel’s Haarlem Workshop.” In Historical Painting Techniques, Materials, and Studio Practice, Preprints of a Symposium, University of Leiden, The Netherlands, 26–29 June 1995, edited by Arie Wallert, Erma Hermens, and Marja Peek, 135–39. Marina Del Rey, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1995. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/historical_painting.

Filedt Kok, J. P. “Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, The Holy Family, c. 1528–c. 1530.” In J. P. Filedt Kok, ed., Early Netherlandish Paintings, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, accessed March 31, 2019. hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.461060.

Harrison, Jefferson Cabell. “The Detroit Christ on Calvary and the Cologne Lamentation of Christ: Two Early Haarlem Paintings by Maerten van Heemskerck.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 37 (1986): 175–94. https://doi.org/10.1163/22145966-90000709

———. The Paintings of Maerten van Heemskerck: A Catalogue Raisonné. PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1987.

Helmus, Liesbeth M. Schilderen in opdracht: Noord-Nederlandse contracten voor altaarstukken 1485–1570. PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 2010.

Hoogewerff, G. J. Jan van Scorel: Peintre de la Renaissance hollandaise. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1923.

Hoven van Genderen, Bram van den. De Heren van de Kerk, de kanunniken van Oudmunster te Utrecht in de late middeleeuwen. Zutphen: Walburg Press, 2003.

Krueger, Ingeborg. “Jan van Scorel (Umkreis), Kalvarienberg, 1530.” In Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, Kunst und Kunsthandwerk: Mittelalter und Neuzeit, 89–92. Kunst und Altertum am Rhein, no. 69. Cologne: Rheinland, 1977.

Meuwissen, Daantje. Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen (ca. 1475–1533): De Renaissance in Amsterdam en Alkmaar. Exh. cat. Zwolle: Waanders, 2014.

Miedema, Hessel, ed., Karel van Mander: The Lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters, vol. 1. Doornspijk: Davaco, 1994.

———. “Over de betrouwbaarheid van Karel van Mander.” Colloquium Neerlandicum 11 (1991): 267–86. https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_han001199101_01/_han001199101_01_0022.php.

———. “Vakonderwijs aan kunstschilders in de Nederlanden.” Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 5–6 (1986–87): 168–82.

van Nierop, Henk. “Van Wonderjaar tot Alteratie, 1566–1578.” In Geschiedenis van Amsterdam: Een stad uit het niets tot 1578, edited by Marijke Carasso-Kok, 1:451–81. Amsterdam: Sun, 2004.

Peeters, Natasja, with the collaboration of Max Martens. “Assistants in Artists’ Workshops in the Southern Netherlands, overview of the archive sources.” In Invisible Hands? The Role and Status of the Painter’s Journeymen in the Low Countries c. 1450–c. 1650, edited by Natasja Peeters, 33–49. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.

van Run, Tatjana. Altaarstukken met het lijden van Christus in serieproductie: Een onderzoek naar de hand van de meester en zijn leerlingen. B.A. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2008.

Thomas, Anabel. The Painter’s Practice in Renaissance Tuscany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

van Tuinen, Ilona, with a contribution by Daantje Meuwissen. Het vroegste Amsterdamse schetsboek: Een zestiende-eeuws zakboekje uit het atelier van Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen. Edited by Andrea van Leerdam and Daantje Meuwissen. Oostszaan: Stichting Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, 2014.

Utrecht Painting, 1363–1600, Catalogue of Paintings, 1363–1600, Centraal Museum Utrecht, edited by Molly Faries and Liesbeth M. Helmus. Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 2011.

Veldman, Ilja. “Adaptation, Emulation and Innovation: Scorel, Gossaert and Other Artists as a Source of Inspiration for the Young Heemskerck.” Oud Holland 132 (2019): 171–208.

Verougstraete, Hélène. Frames and Supports in 15th- and 16th-century Southern Netherlandish Painting. Brussels: Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, 2015. http://org.kikirpa.be/frames.

Imprint

Review: Peer Review (Double Blind)
DOI: 10.5092/jhna.12.2.1
License:
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Recommended Citation:
Molly Faries, Henri Defoer, "Jan van Scorel’s Crucifixion for the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam: The “finest painting in all of the regions of Flanders”," Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 12:2 (Summer 2020) DOI: 10.5092/jhna.12.2.1