Jan van Scorel (attributed to)

The dying Cleopatra

c. 1520 - c. 1524

Technical notes

The support is a single horizontally grained plank of beech ('fagus sp.)', approx. 0.5-0.7 cm thick. The panel has been thinned and cradled, although the vertical members of the cradle have been removed. Dendrochronology has shown that the youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1509. The panel could have been ready for use by 1511. The white ground and paint layers extend to the edges; there is no barbe or unpainted rim of wood. The ground has been identified as gesso. Cross-sections of samples show that the paint layers lie directly on the unprimed ground. No underdrawing could be detected with either the naked eye or by infrared reflectography. The figure has been delimited by the surrounding paint, although the contours between the figure and background are not sharply defined. The flesh tones were painted wet in wet.

Scientific examination and reports

  • paint samples: J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, with the researcher, nos. A 119/1-2, 8 november 1978
  • X-radiography: RMA, no. 1582 (n.a.), 1 oktober 1984
  • dendrochronology: P. Klein, RMA, 13 februari 1998
  • dendrochronology: P. Klein, RMA, 17 december 1998
  • X-radiography: RMA, nos. 1705/1-3, 13 juni 1999
  • condition report: Z. Benders, RMA, 13 februari 2007
  • infrared reflectography: M. Wolters / M. Leeflang [2], RKD/RMA, no. RKDG447, 16 februari 2007

Literature scientific examination and reports

Wallert 2008, pp. 215-20

Condition

Fair. There is some raised paint in the lower part of the legs, and the varnish has yellowed slightly. There is considerable retouching in the figure, especially across the arms and breast just above the asp.

Conservation

  • M. March, 1998 - 1999: complete restoration

Provenance

… ; bequeathed to the museum by Mr Alphonse Lambert Eugène Ridder de Stuers (1841-1919), Paris, July 1920; on loan to the Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 2004-10

ObjectNumber: SK-A-2843

Credit line: A. de Stuers Bequest

The artist

Biography

Jan van Scorel (Schoorl 1495 - Utrecht 1562), attributed to

Jan van Scorel was born in 1495, according to Karel van Mander, in the village of Schoorl northwest of Alkmaar, the natural son of a priest, Andries Ouckeyn, and Dieuwer Aertsdr. He died in Utrecht in 1562 and was buried in the Mariakerk, where a funerary monument was erected that contained a portrait of Scorel by his pupil, Antonio Moro. Van Mander praised Scorel for having visited Italy, returning with a new and more beautiful manner of painting; and the artist is still recognised today for the widespread influence that his Italianate style had in the northern Netherlands.

Jan van Scorel was not only a painter but also a canon. His church office in the Mariakerk, Utrecht, prohibited him from marrying, but his will (1537) tells us that he lived with Agatha van Schoonhoven as his common-law wife; the date 1529 on Scorel’s portrait of her must mark the period when the two met.1Rome, Galeria Doria Pamphilj; illustrated in ENP XII, 1975, no. 255, pl. 189. One of the couple’s six children, Peter (c. 1530-1622) became a painter. Van Mander’s remark that Scorel ‘was very familiar with and liked by all the great lords of the Netherlands,’ is almost an understatement. The artist built up an influential network among the clergy, beginning with Pope Adrian VI, the artist’s protector when he arrived in Rome around 1522, and including Herman van Lokhorst, dean of Oudmunster (St Saviour), Scorel’s first, important patron in Utrecht, and other fellow ecclesiastics. In addition, Scorel had high court connections. In the negotiations surrounding his canonry, Scorel’s sponsors were none other than the stadholders Henry III of Nassau-Breda and Floris of Egmond, the most powerful nobles at the Court of Holland at the time. In c. 1532-33, Scorel visited the courts at Breda and Mechelen, where he met the neo-Latin poet, Janus Secundus, and was at the court in Brussels around 1552. Scorel also worked for the municipality of Utrecht and received payments from the city for his activities associated with the triumphal entries into Utrecht of Charles V (1540) and Philip II (1549).

Early sources suggest Scorel began his training as an apprentice in Alkmaar or Haarlem, but neither suggestions have been substantiated. Van Mander’s account is more credible when it comes to the second step in Scorel’s training: after attending the Latin School in Alkmaar, Scorel moved to Amsterdam around 1512, where he became an assistant in Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen’s workshop. Van Mander also reports that Scorel studied briefly with Jan Gossart, who came to Utrecht after his protector, Philip of Burgundy, had been elected bishop in 1517. By 1518-19 Scorel left the Netherlands on a long journey whose route was described in detail by Karel van Mander, eventually taking the painter to Venice, the Holy Land and Rome.

Scorel’s stays in both Venice and Rome can be construed as a continuation of his training, for he was profoundly influenced by his new surroundings. After returning to Venice from his pilgrimage to Jerusalem around 1520, Scorel painted a number of portraits and landscapes, and he may have ventured on to Rome after the Utrecht native, Adriaan Florisz Boeyens, was elected pope in January 1522. According to Van Mander, Scorel not only had access to antique statuary as overseer of the Vatican collections in the Belvedere, an appointment he received from Pope Adrian VI, he was also able to make drawings after Raphael, Michelangelo and the works of other Italian masters. Adrian VI’s promise to Scorel of a canonry in Utrecht led the artist to settle there in 1524 after his return from Rome.

Van Mander’s life of Jan van Scorel is the primary source for the reconstruction of the painter’s oeuvre. He knew, for instance, that during his early travels, the painter worked for nobility in Carinthia (Austria), where Scorel’s first signed and dated painting, the 1519 Holy Kinship altarpiece, can still be seen today.2Obervellach, St Martin’s; illustrated in ENP XII, 1975, no. 298, pls. 160-62. The major touchstone of Scorel’s first years in Utrecht, the Triptych with the Entry of Christ into Jerusalem painted as a memorial for members of the Lokhorst family around 1526,3Utrecht, Centraal Museum; illustrated in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, no. 22. is described at length by Van Mander. When Jan van Scorel moved to Haarlem (1527-30), Van Mander tells us that he was received by Simon van Sanen, Commander of the Knights of St John. Both Van Mander’s account and the inventories of the order mention a number of key works that Scorel completed during this period: The Baptism of Christ, Adam and Eve4Both in Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum; illustrated in coll. cat. Haarlem 2006, p. 601, no. 425, p. 605, no. 427. and Mary Magdalen (SK-A-372). Scorel’s Haarlem period was an extremely critical and productive one: he established his basic repertoire of subjects, received more prestigious commissions, such as the Crucifixion Altarpiece for the Oude Kerk in Amsterdam (now lost), rented a house and took on students, among them Maarten van Heemskerck, and expanded and standardised the operations of his workshop.

Scorel’s ‘most flourishing period’, according to Karel van Mander, followed upon the artist’s return to Utrecht by September 1530. Unfortunately, many of the works Van Mander describes from this period have been lost. The Finding of the True Cross triptych, probably commissioned by Henry III of Nassau-Breda in the mid-1530s, has survived, although in poor condition.5Breda, Grote Kerk; illustrated in ENP XII, 1975, no. 302, pl. 165. Some remarkable discoveries were made in the late 20th century of altarpieces executed by Scorel and his shop around 1540 for the abbey of Marchiennes in what is now northern France. Fragments survive from an Altarpiece with St Ursula and the 11,000 Virgins, and the Polyptych with Sts James the Greater and Stephen lacks only one wing.6Both in Douai, Museé de La Chartreuse; illustrated in Faries 1975, p. 115, figs. 15a-b, pp. 112-13, figs. 14a-c. These works, along with the Landscape with Bathsheba of c. 1540-45 (SK-A-670), provide us with a better understanding of Scorel’s late style. His oeuvre consists of some 60 extant paintings, between 20 and 25 drawings, and 6 designs for prints.

In addition to Maarten van Heemskerck, Antonio Moro and Scorel’s son Peter were apprentices in Scorel’s shop. Others, such as Lambert Sustris, may have had brief contact with his workshop as assistants. Van Mander describes Scorel as the typical uomo universale of his time. He was skilled in languages, wrote poetry as well as songs, acted as an amateur archaeologist and marine engineer, and participated in an ambitious land development scheme, the reclamation of the Zijpe in north Holland.

References
Lampsonius 1572 (1956), no. 17; Buchelius 1583-1639 (1928), pp. 21, 26-30, 52, 63-64; Van Mander 1604, fols. 234r-36v; Muller 1880; Justi 1881, pp. 193-210; Scheibler/Bode 1881, pp. 211-14; Hoogewerff 1923a; Friedländer XII, 1935, pp. 118-56; Hoogewerff in Thieme/Becker XXX, 1936, pp. 401-04; Hoogewerff IV, 1941-42, pp. 23-191; ENP XII, 1975, pp. 65-81; Faries 1970, pp. 2-24 (documents); Faries 1972; Faries in Amsterdam 1986a, pp. 179-80; Miedema III, 1996, pp. 268-90; Faries in Turner 1996, XXVIII, pp. 215-29; Faries 1997, pp. 107-16; Van Thiel-Stroman in coll. cat. Haarlem 2006, pp. 303-04; Faries in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, pp. 167-69

M. Faries, 2010
Updated by the author, 2016

Entry

It is the asp, coiled around the figure’s right hand and biting her breast, that identifies this female nude as Cleopatra, the last pharaoh of ancient Egypt. By inducing the venomous snake to bite, Cleopatra committed suicide after her defeat by the Romans in 30 BC.

This depiction of the Egyptian queen very likely relates to a famous antique statue of Ariadne in the Belvedere of the Vatican that, up until the late 16th century, was believed to represent Cleopatra. The statue’s original installation near a fountain and against a backdrop of sculpted rocks and reeds is thought to have offered a possible locale for Cleopatra’s death scene. Literary sources such as Plutarch had placed Cleopatra’s suicide indoors on a golden couch.7Faries 1972, pp. 65-68; Brown in Venice 1999, pp. 494-95, no. 141. In the Rijksmuseum painting, the artist has turned for inspiration to the tradition for representing fountain nymphs in a landscape setting.8Faries 1972, pp. 65-68; Brown in Venice 1999, pp. 494-95, no. 141. Cleopatra reclines and leans back against cushions on a mound of rocks at the base of tree trunks acting as a foil for the figure on the left side of the composition. Allusions to Venus pervade this conflation of subject matter, and occur in other early 16th-century depictions of reclining nudes in Germany and Venice.9Brown 1999, pp. 430-31.

The Cleopatra was almost universally accepted as a Jan van Scorel in the earlier literature. Most scholars felt that he executed it when he was in Venice, c. 1520-21, since it showed the influence of Titian and Giorgione, the originators of the reclining Venus type.10Baldass 1929b, pp. 218, 222; Friedländer XII, 1935, p. 203, no. 342; De Jonge 1940, p. 10; Hoogewerff IV, 1941-42, p. 56; Utrecht 1955, p. 30, no. 6. Hoogewerff was the first to propose the more specific influence of Jacopo Palma’s Nymph in a Landscape in Dresden, which is dated c. 1518-20.11Hoogewerff 1923a, p. 28; illustrated in Venice 1999, pp. 492-93. Some even suggested that Scorel could have seen Palma’s painting in the collection of Francesco Zio in Venice, but the latest literature rejects this theory.12Brown in Venice 1999, p. 494. Noting Cleopatra’s pronounced musculature, the authors of the 1955 Scorel exhibition proposed that the painting might have been executed in Rome,13Utrecht 1955, p. 30, no. 6; Faries 1972, pp. 66-68. where Scorel, having been appointed overseer of the Vatican collections by Pope Adrian VI, is likely to have seen the Cleopatra sculpture. After the panel’s support was identified as beech in 1998, several scholars suggested that the ‘Cleopatra’ might have been painted on Scorel’s return journey from Italy in 1524.14Brown in Venice 1999, pp. 494-95, no. 141; Wallert 2008, p. 216.

More recently, doubts have been expressed about the Cleopatra’s attribution. Faries was the first to note uncharacteristic aspects of the painting in 1972,15Faries 1972, p. 66. and in 1987, Harrison argued for an attribution to Jan Swart.16Harrison 1987, II, p. 606. In 1991, Meijer stated that it was impossible to confirm Scorel’s authorship of the Cleopatra, and stressed the painting’s lack of similarity to Scorel’s signed and dated (1521) Tobias and the Angel in Düsseldorf.17Meijer 1991, p. 33.

When compared with Jan van Scorel’s known works, the Cleopatra exhibits many anomalies, both in style and technique. The panel is beech, but Scorel is known to have used only poplar, fir, pine, and oak supports.18Faries in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, pp. 23-24. There is no lead-white priming on the ground,19See Technical notes. whereas the use of a lead-white priming is a feature of Scorel’s technique that develops during the years of his early travels and is routine after his return from Italy.20Faries in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, pp. 26-27. No underdrawing could be detected in the Cleopatra. Even though there are some works from Scorel’s Italian period that exhibit underdrawing only sporadically, there are always at least a few lines that register in infrared or can be seen by the naked eye.21Faries/Wolff 1996, pp. 731-32; Faries 2002, pp. 47-49. The cushions Cleopatra leans on are painted in a manner that is unusual for Scorel: highlights and shadows are juxtaposed rather than built up in a modulated glazing technique. The greater opacity of Cleopatra’s flesh as well as her more robust proportions differ markedly from Scorel’s thinly-painted, svelte female nudes, as seen in the figure of St Agnes in the Lokhorst Triptych of c. 1526 in Utrecht,22Centraal Museum; illustrated in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, no. 22. or in the figure of Bathsheba in Scorel’s Landscape with Bathsheba of c. 1540-45 (SK-A-670). Many more paintings are now known from Scorel’s Venetian period than the Düsseldorf Tobias and the Angel mentioned above, and they differ in composition from the Cleopatra. Landscape dominates in these works, which are usually populated with small figures and depicted with sweeping vistas along diagonals, and rock outcroppings punctuating the high horizon. Such landscape constructions differ entirely from the low, rolling hills in the background of Cleopatra. Finally, Scorel is not known to have painted mythological subjects or events from ancient history.

To date, there has been no support for the tentative attributions of the Cleopatra to Jan Swart or Jan Stephan van Kalcar.23Respectively Harrison 1987, II, p. 606 and as mentioned in Meijer 1991, p. 33. On the other hand, there are caveats to an outright rejection of an attribution to Scorel. Scorel’s style and technique were changing rapidly during his early travels; until more of the artist’s Venetian works were recognised, they were attributed to artists as diverse as Marcello Fogolino and David Vinckboons. During this period, Scorel’s sources were also varied, and he closely followed motifs taken from prints or works he could have seen at first hand. The Cleopatra might also be the result of a commission in which the client specified the source material.

The materials of the support and ground provide important, but not entirely straightforward information. Apparently, painters of this period only rarely used beech supports: when they were selected, they were most prevalent in southern Germany, and were used only very occasionally in Austria and Italy.24Heydenreich 2007, pp. 48-49; Klein 1990, p. 87; e-mail from Peter Klein, 29 February 2008. Since the ground of the Cleopatra has been identified as gesso,25See Technical notes. this would seem to support the notion that the painting was executed in Italy, although there were also non-Italian sources of gypsum, the material used for gesso grounds, such as those recently cited in what is present-day Austria.26Wallert 2008, p. 217. However, in the two paintings Scorel is known to have painted in the area of Austria, the grounds are both chalk.27Identified in a sample from Scorel’s 1519 Holy Kinship done in Obervellach, Austria, by microchemistry by J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, 11 August 1980; for the second example, see Faries/Wolff 1996, p. 730, mentioning a second ground layer of dolomite in one of these works. Overall, since the panel clearly relates to the regions of Scorel’s early travels, either to or from Italy, the artist remains the primary candidate for consideration. Even so, it stands to reason to remain alert for reports of a similar use of materials and to remain open to other possibilities for attribution.

M. Faries, 2010
Literature updated, 2016

Literature

Hoogewerff 1923a, pp. 28-29 (as Scorel); Baldass 1929b, pp. 218, 222 (as Scorel); Friedländer XII, 1935, p. 203, no. 342 (as Scorel); De Jonge 1940, p. 10 (as Scorel); Hoogewerff IV, 1941-42, p. 56 (as Scorel); Utrecht 1955, p. 30, no. 6 (as Scorel), with earlier literature; Faries 1972, pp. 65-68 (as Scorel ?); ENP XII, 1975, p. 125, no. 342 (as Scorel); Harrison 1987, II, pp. 604-06 (as Jan Swart); Meijer 1991, pp. 24, 32-33 (as Jan Stephan van Kalkar; Brown in Venice 1999, pp. 494-95, no. 141, with earlier literature; Wallert 2008, pp. 215-20 (as Scorel); Faries in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, no. 20

Download Bibliography (PDF)

Collection catalogues

1934, p. 263, no. 2197b (as Scorel); 1960, p. 284, no. 2196 A1 (as Scorel); 1976, p. 511, no. A 2843 (as Scorel), with earlier literature; 1992, p. 84, no. A 2843 (as circle of Scorel)

Citation

M. Faries, 2010, 'attributed to Jan van Scorel, The dying Cleopatra, c. 1520 - c. 1524', in J.P. Filedt Kok and M. Ubl (eds.), Early Netherlandish Paintings, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.5442

(accessed 29 May 2025 07:10:47).

Footnotes

  • 1Rome, Galeria Doria Pamphilj; illustrated in ENP XII, 1975, no. 255, pl. 189.
  • 2Obervellach, St Martin’s; illustrated in ENP XII, 1975, no. 298, pls. 160-62.
  • 3Utrecht, Centraal Museum; illustrated in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, no. 22.
  • 4Both in Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum; illustrated in coll. cat. Haarlem 2006, p. 601, no. 425, p. 605, no. 427.
  • 5Breda, Grote Kerk; illustrated in ENP XII, 1975, no. 302, pl. 165.
  • 6Both in Douai, Museé de La Chartreuse; illustrated in Faries 1975, p. 115, figs. 15a-b, pp. 112-13, figs. 14a-c.
  • 7Faries 1972, pp. 65-68; Brown in Venice 1999, pp. 494-95, no. 141.
  • 8Faries 1972, pp. 65-68; Brown in Venice 1999, pp. 494-95, no. 141.
  • 9Brown 1999, pp. 430-31.
  • 10Baldass 1929b, pp. 218, 222; Friedländer XII, 1935, p. 203, no. 342; De Jonge 1940, p. 10; Hoogewerff IV, 1941-42, p. 56; Utrecht 1955, p. 30, no. 6.
  • 11Hoogewerff 1923a, p. 28; illustrated in Venice 1999, pp. 492-93.
  • 12Brown in Venice 1999, p. 494.
  • 13Utrecht 1955, p. 30, no. 6; Faries 1972, pp. 66-68.
  • 14Brown in Venice 1999, pp. 494-95, no. 141; Wallert 2008, p. 216.
  • 15Faries 1972, p. 66.
  • 16Harrison 1987, II, p. 606.
  • 17Meijer 1991, p. 33.
  • 18Faries in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, pp. 23-24.
  • 19See Technical notes.
  • 20Faries in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, pp. 26-27.
  • 21Faries/Wolff 1996, pp. 731-32; Faries 2002, pp. 47-49.
  • 22Centraal Museum; illustrated in coll. cat. Utrecht 2011, no. 22.
  • 23Respectively Harrison 1987, II, p. 606 and as mentioned in Meijer 1991, p. 33.
  • 24Heydenreich 2007, pp. 48-49; Klein 1990, p. 87; e-mail from Peter Klein, 29 February 2008.
  • 25See Technical notes.
  • 26Wallert 2008, p. 217.
  • 27Identified in a sample from Scorel’s 1519 Holy Kinship done in Obervellach, Austria, by microchemistry by J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, 11 August 1980; for the second example, see Faries/Wolff 1996, p. 730, mentioning a second ground layer of dolomite in one of these works.