Imaginäre Ansicht von Jerusalem mit Rundtempel

Among the most persistent functions of

Netherlandish drawings from the fifteenth century

through the first half of the sixteenth was their use

as compositional models in workshops for reference

by the master and his apprentices. Several model

drawings featuring compositions of Jerusalem

are known to have circulated in the workshops of

Flemish painters;1 two of these that are probably

after the same model still exist.2 The first forms

part of the so-called Errera Sketchbook in Brussels,

a compilation of copy drawings (drawings made

after paintings or other compositions) that were

bound into an album during the second half of the

sixteenth century.3 The other, which carries a false

monogram of Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528), is the

present sheet, from the Albertina. Both have long

been associated with the workshop and circle of

Jan de Beer (1470/80–1528).4

De Beer, who enjoyed considerable acclaim

during his lifetime, fell into almost complete

obscurity within a few decades of his death.

Subsequent to his name being referenced in

Lodovico Guicciardini’s Descrittione di tutti i paesi

bassi (Description of the Low Countries),5 three

hundred years would pass before his rediscovery.6

Yet, the number of reproductions of his works

attests to his enormous influence on the art of his

time in Antwerp. For example, there exist at least

fifteen copies of one of his last works, his Crucifixion

in Cologne.7 Interest in De Beer’s Crucifixion was

not equally focused on the whole composition. An

aspect of the painting that attracted particular

attention was its background—probably conceived

by De Beer but executed by a landscape specialist—

which presents Jerusalem in a mountainous

landscape.8 The city is depicted as a fortified town

surrounded by a wall with numerous battlements,

towers, gates, and tiny windows. It is recognizable

by the Temple of Solomon, which is represented

as a soaring, central edifice in the shape of the

Dome of the Rock. This kind of representation of

Jerusalem—which had nothing to do with its actual

appearance—was quite common in Netherlandish

painting of the time.9

This De Beer landscape became a prototype

often adopted by Antwerp workshops. His lost

preparatory drawing for the painting was eagerly

copied by Antwerp artists, and the composition

thereby incorporated into workshop model books for

later reference. The two surviving copies in Brussels

and Vienna reproduce only the view depicted to

the left of the crucified Christ. The Errera version

was cropped into a horizontal format, thus fitting

that of the album, whereas the Albertina drawing

provides a detailed rendering of De Beer’s cityscape

in a vertical format. The draftsman concentrated on

the meticulous portrayal of small-scale architectural

elements, largely ignoring the mountainous

scenery and the hilly foreground. He rendered the

vegetation, which is luxurious and dominant in the

painting, with just a few concentrated strokes and

marks.

In the barren foreground, the artist added

two conversing figures, but it is only through

the context of the Crucifixion that they can be

identified as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus.

These figures could suggest that the Albertina

drawing represents a direct copy from the painting.

However, the draftsman depicted further details

of the temple architecture and of the fortresslike

building on the hill in the upper left with far more

clarity than in the painted version. Moreover, he

painstakingly recorded architectural details even

where they were concealed in the painting, for

example, by the head of Mary. Since these motifs

are also found in other drawn or painted copies,

the existence of a sheet used as a model for both

the painting and the drawings is very likely.10

Finally, the drawing’s somewhat insecure, hesitant

handling further suggests that the Albertina sheet

was not the prototype itself.

 

1. Ewing 2016, 229n233.

2. This was first recognized by Starcky 1981. The present

existence of two copies would seem to indicate a number that

was originally considerably higher; see also Ewing in Belkin and

Van Hout 2005, 82.

3. Master of the Errera Sketchbook, Imaginary View of Jerusalem

with a Circular Temple, c. 1520–40, pen and brown ink, on paper,

13.2 x 20.4 cm, Errera Sketchbook, Musées royaux des beaux-arts

de Belgique, Brussels, 4630/130; see also Ewing in Belkin and

Van Hout 2005, 77–79, no. 25.

4. Starcky 1981.

5. On Guicciardini’s Descrittione, see Peters’s introduction to this

volume; see also Van Dixhoorn 2014.

6. For De Beer’s fall into obscurity and subsequent rediscovery,

see Ewing 2015.

7. Jan de Beer, Crucifixion, oil on panel, 96 x 64 cm,

Erzbischöfliches Diözesanmuseum, Cologne, M.18; Ewing in

Belkin and Van Hout 2005, 73, no. 24; Ewing 2015, 229–30.

8. It was depicted again, for example, in a painting of the Passion

attributed to Noël Bellemare (active 1512–46): first half of the

16th century, painting on wood, 148 x 238.5 cm, Saint Gervais-

Saint Protais, Paris; see Ewing in Belkin and Van Hout 2005, 73,

77; Van den Brink in Scailliérez 2017, 136, no. 42.

9. Hausherr 1987–88, 50.

10. Belkin and Van Hout 2005, 82.

 

Emily J. Peters, Laura M. Ritter (Hg.), AK Tales of the City. Drawing in the Netherlands from Bosch to Bruegel, Cleveland Museum of Art 9.10.2022 - 8.1.2023, New Haven 2022, Kat. Nr. 7