Christmas Crib

Technical notes

Carved and assembled.

Condition

One of the lion-figure feet is a modern replacement – made by the last owner – based on one of the remaining three original lions. Minimal sections of the tracery are missing in places along the bottom edge of the rocking cradle’s short sides, as are several sections of the tracery on the base. Unclear is whether the two spiralling colonettes were surmounted by small figures (trumpeting angels?), as suggested by small holes at the top; in any event, the colonettes on the related Christmas crib in the Musée Cluny (fig. a) also have no crowning elements. At the time of its acquisition, the crib was accompanied by a polychromed, wooden 18th-century Christ Child (BK-2013-14-2) made to replace the original figure.

Provenance

? Commissioned by members of the Cockaert and Van Cattenbroeck families, Brussels, possibly Gérard Cockaert (d. 1546) and his wife Marguerite-Madeleine van Cattenbroeck (d. 1540), c. 1500-10; …; unknown hospital, Tienen (Tirlemont), Belgium, before 1914; …; sale collection Arthur Sambon (1867 <about:blank>-1947 <about:blank>), Paris (Galerie Georges Petit), 25-28 May 1914, no. 389, frs. 3000, to ‘De Tinan’,¹Copy RKD. This ‘De Tinan’ is certain to have been a member of the Le Barbier de Tinan family, who resided in the vicinity of Jumièges, most probably Maurice Le Barbier de Tinan (1842-1918). for the Lepel-Cointet family and their ‘Musée de Jumièges’ (near Rouen); …; collection Charles Van Herck (1884-1955) and his heirs, in or after 1946; private collection, Antwerp; …; from the dealer Lucas J. Kumps, Antwerp,²Provenance reconstructed in I. Ippel, ‘A Christmas Crib as a Meek Heart of the Late Mediaeval Christian’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 62 (2014), pp. 330-47, esp. pp. 341-43. to Aimé Van Strydonck, Antwerp, c. 1998; his wife Mrs M. Van Strydonck-Dausy, Antwerp, 2011; from whom, including BK-2013-14-2, €125,000, to the museum, with the support of the Frits en Phine Verhaaff Fonds/Rijksmuseum Fonds and the Ebus Fonds/Rijksmuseum Fonds, 25 September 2013

ObjectNumber: BK-2013-14-1

Credit line: Purchased with the support of the Frits en Phine Verhaaff Fonds/ Rijksmuseum Fonds and the Ebus Fonds/ Rijksmuseum Fonds

The artist

Biography

Jan Borman II (? Neerlinter c. 1460 - Brussels c. 1520) and the Borman workshop

The prominent Brussels sculptor Jan Borman II - or Borreman(s) - was rediscovered by the Leuven city archivist Van Even in 1876. The sculptor, described in a Brussels’ document drawn up in 1513 as the beste meester beeldsnijdere (best master sculptor) is part of an influential sculptors-dynasty, two members of which (his father and son) confusingly are likewise named ‘Jan’. In the 1930’s and 80’s the biographical and archival knowledge on the Borman-dynasty was greatly enhanced through efforts by De Borchgrave d’Altena and D’Hainaut-Zveny, and again updated in 2019 by Debaene and Dumortier.³M. Debaene, ‘A Survey of Archiveal Sources’, in M. Debaene (ed.), Borman: A Family of Northern Renaissance Sculptors, exh. cat. Leuven (Museum M) 2019, pp. 47-53; C. Dumortier, ‘A Sculptor’s Family of Leuven in Brussels and Antwerp: Some New Information about the Bormans’, in ibid., pp. 57-61.

In 1479, the name of Jan Borman II – also referred to as ‘the Great’ in distinguishing him from his father, Jan I (c. 1440-1502/3) – appears for the first time in the city register of Brussels in connection with his citizenship and entry into the sculptor’s guild. He therefore originated from elsewhere, with some strong indications pointing to Leuven, where his father – who lived in the nearby town of Neerlinter – is considered to have been active from about 1460 until his death.

While few details are known about his life, certain is that Jan II had a brother, Willem I, who might also have worked as a sculptor, and at least two sons, Pasquier (c. 1470-1537?) and Jan III (c. 1480-?), who both assisted in their father’s workshop and later entered the same guild, respectively in the years 1492 and 1499. Other Borman-family members who were probably active in the workshop are Maria Borman (d. 1545, Jan III’s wife or sister?) and Willem II (c. 1518?-before 1599, Pasquier’s son). Jan II was highly active in the cultural and social life of Brussels, serving as an administrator of the rhetorical chamber, a member of the Seven Sorrows Confraternity.⁴E.S. Thelen (ed.), The Seven Sorrows Confraternity of Brussels: Drama, Ceremony, and Art Patronage (16th-17th centuries), Turnhout 2015, pp. 94-102. Jan II was active until around 1516 and is likely to have died in or around 1520, as his name no longer appears in archival documents after this time.

Jan Borman II’s most important work is the St George Altar, completed in 1493 for the Great Guild of the Crossbow for their chapel of Onze-Lieve-Vrouw van Ginderbuiten in Leuven. Although he produced at least two other altarpieces for the cities of Leuven and Turnhout, only the St George Altar has survived, since 1813 preserved at the Art and History Museum in Brussels.⁵Brussels, Art and History Museum, inv. no. 362. Remarkably, the altar has been signed, thus clearly conveying a self-awareness of his ability and status as an artist. In fact, the Borman family placed their signature on a number of their carved altarpieces – also those in Herentals (signed by Pasquier) and in Güstrow (signed by Jan III) – a practice that was highly exceptional for Netherlandish sculptors at this time. The Borman workshop created several altarpieces for the German, Scandinavian and Spanish export markets and at least one altarpiece is known to have found its way to Italy (Mondovi).⁶M. Debaene (ed.), Borman: A Family of Northern Renaissance Sculptors, exh. cat. Leuven (Museum M) 2019, nos. 107, 111, 112, 171-86, 225-27, 236-39, 241, 242, 262 and 264.

In 1511, Jan Borman II was asked to provide the wooden models for life-size bronze statues, to be cast by Renier I van Thienen (active c. 1465-d. 1498), that were destined for the balustrade enclosing the forecourt (Baliënhof) of the Coudenberg Ducal Palace in Brussels after designs by the court painter Jan van Roome (active 1498-1521). Jan II had previously collaborated with Van Thienen on the tomb of Mary of Burgundy in Bruges in circa 1490-98. On stylistic grounds, Borman likely also carved the wooden models for Isabella of Burgundy’s tomb in Antwerp, of which ten surviving bronze weepers are today preserved in the Rijksmuseum (BK-AM-33). The Borman style was highly influential in the first decades of the sixteenth century and the family workshop was continued until the late 1540’s.

In 2019, the Museum M in Leuven organized an exhibition on the Borman dynasty. In the accompanying catalogue, Lefftz and Debaene attempted to define the creative identity and artistic development of individual family members, resulting in a fundamental reordering and major expansion of the oeuvre.⁷M. Debaene ‘The Death and Rise of the Leuven Late Gothic Sculpture Centre’, in M. Debaene (ed.), Borman: A Family of Northern Renaissance Sculptors, exh. cat. Leuven (Museum M) 2019, pp. 62-63; M. Lefftz, ‘The creative identity of the Bormans: A stylistic approach’ in ibid., pp. 65-99; M. Lefftz and M. Debaene, ‘Summary Catalogue of the Borman Dynasty and Workshop’, in ibid. pp. 178-293. In many cases based on presumption and stylistic arguments, their findings led to substantial shifts. Sculptures previously linked to the most renowned member of the Borman family, Jan II, as well as other anonymous Leuven masters, including the Master of the Arenberg Lamentation, the Master of Piétrebais and the Master of Christ on the Cold Stone, were now reassigned to an oeuvre of approximately sixty pieces ascribed to father Jan I, a sculptor to whom in fact no surviving sculptures can be attributed unequivocally. In Lefftz and Debaene’s vision, the Borman style originated in Jan I’s workshop in Leuven, where Jan II first acquired his skills before moving on to Brussels. Grandson Pasquier was linked to works such as the alabaster statuettes on the tomb monuments of Margaret of Bourbon, her husband and mother-in-law in the Monastère royale de Brou at Bourg-en-Bresse, while Jan III and Maria were chiefly typecast as conservative and inferior sculptors, merely capable of repeating previously devised formulas. In light of the stylistic cohesion of a majority of the works, however, attributions to individual artistic personalities within the Borman workshop prove perilous when founded solely on stylistic criteria. Moreover, a close collaboration between family members, apprentices and assistants undoubtedly existed in the workshop, with larger commissions even involving working associations with other studios, as was common practice at this time. On the other hand, a number of the attributed sculptures display only a minimal stylistic agreement with the Borman family’s core works, suggesting little more than an origin in the same artistic circle.

Marie Mundigler and Bieke van der Mark, 2024

References
J. de Borchgrave d’Altena, Le retable de Saint Georges de Jan Borman, Brussels 1947; M. Debaene (ed.), Borman: A Family of Northern Renaissance Sculptors, exh. cat. Leuven (Museum M) 2019; E. van Even, ‘L’auteur du retable de 1493 du Musée de la Porte de Hal à Bruxelles’, Bulletin des Commissions Royales d’Art et d’Archéologie 16 (1877), pp. 581-98; E. van Even, ‘Maître Jean Borman, le grand sculpteur belge de la fin du XVe siècle’, Bulletin des Commissions Royales d’Art et d’Archéologie 23 (1884), pp. 397-426; B. D’Hainault-Zveny, ‘La dynastie Borreman (XVe-XVIe s.). Crayon généalogique et analyse comparative des personnalités artistiques’, Annales d’histoire de l’art et d’archeologie V (1983), pp. 47-66; J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, pp. 40-45; H. Nieuwdorp, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu den Bormanns, ihren Werkstätten und der Zusammenarbeit’, in C. Périer-D’Ieteren et al., Der Passions-Altar der Pfarrkirche St. Marien zu Güstrow. Historische und Technologische Studie, Brussels 2014, pp. 169-73; E. Pegues, ‘Jan Borreman’s Wooden Models for Bronze Sculpture: A Documentary Reconstruction’, Artibus et Historiae 76 (2017), pp. 181-204; F. Scholten, Isabella’s Weepers: Ten Statues from a Burgundian Tomb, Amsterdam 2007, pp. 46-48; U. Thieme and F. Becker (eds.), Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, vol. 4, Leipzig 1910, pp. 364-65

Entry

In the Netherlands and the German-speaking countries, it was the custom in the weeks after Christmas to rock a small figure of the Christ Child in a crib made especially for that purpose. Lasting up until the Reformation, the practice of rocking the cradle occurred in the home setting, around a tresoor (dresser) which then temporarily functioned as a house altar. Yet the same ritual was carried out by monks and nuns in the monastic setting and by priests when such cribs were placed on church altars. In anticipation of the Christ Child’s arrival on Christmas day, the cribs were furnished with small bells and miniature bedclothes. During the actual rocking of the cradle, hymns were sung by the priest, the worshippers and often even children.⁸I. Ippel, ‘A Christmas Crib as a Meek Heart of the Late Mediaeval Christian’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 62 (2014), pp. 330-47, esp. pp. 330-40. In a mocking commentary written in 1604 recounting this practice, which by this time had fallen entirely out of use, the Calvinist elder and antipapist Walich Sieuwertsz stated: ‘They know how on Christmas Day it was a custom to place a small crib on the high altar with a figure therein, in the form of a lying baby wearing a diaper; and that the parents took their children to the church, with a small crib and bell; and when during the mass the priest began to rock the child on the altar and began to sing Eia, Eia, Eia etc., then the children joined in, with each rocking their own little [Christ] child and singing Eia, while in doing so they made much noise and ringing, so that accompanied by the organ the entire church played along in a special way adding lustre to the music. and is that now not a splendid form of religious practice, to commemorate the birth of our Saviour in such a childish and ridiculous way?’⁹Sy weten hoemen op Kerstdach een wieghsken met een Beeldeken daerinne, nae een cleyn kindeken ligghende in de luyers gefatsoneert, opt hooch Autaer plachten te setten; ende dat d´Ouders hare kinderen met een wiegsken ende schelle in de kercke leyden; ende als de Priester onder de Misse het kindeke opt Autaer staende begoste te wieghen ende singhen Eia, Eia, Eia, &c. soo vinghen de kinderen voort mede aen elck zijne kindeken te wieghen ende Eia te singhen, maeckende daer benevens een groot gheluyt ende gheclanck met haere schellen, dat de gheheele kercke onder de Orghel op eene sonderlinghe wyse was spelende, die het spel hielp vercieren. En is dit niet eene fraeye oeffeninghe in de Christelijke Religie, om op soodanighe kindische ende belachelijcke wijse gheheughenisse te houden van de gheboorte onses Salichmakers?, see Walich Syvaertz, Roomsche mysterien: ondeckt in een cleyn tractaetgen: alwaer bewesen wert, dat over de leere vande transsubstantiatie, by vele doctoren ende gheleerden der Roomsche kercke, seer wonderbaerlijc gedisputeert: ende van sommighe wederghesproocken, ende by andere in twijfel ghetrocken is gheweest…, Amsterdam (Ambrosius Janszoon) 1604 (in the unpaged prologue). Although likely originating in the twelfth century, in the Netherlands this unusual form of Christmas devotion is certain to have reached its high point in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The large numbers of small pipeclay rocking cribs, serially produced in Utrecht and elsewhere in the Low Countries, indicate the wide dissemination of the practice by this time, with the possession of such cribs by no means restricted to the elite.¹⁰See for example J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, nos. 891, 892; M.L. Caron, ‘Pijpaarden beeldjes, individuele devotie en massacultuur’, in Vroomheid per dozijn, exh. cat. Utrecht (Rijksmuseum het Catharijneconvent) 1982, pp. 17-21, esp. pp. 19-20; M. Leeflang et al., Middeleeuwse beelden uit Utrecht: 1430-1530/Mittelalterliche Bildwerke aus Utrecht: 1430-1530, exh. cat. Utrecht (Museum Catharijneconvent)/Aachen (Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum) 2012-13, p. 118 and no. 93k. The regular mention of Christmas cribs in people’s wills in the Southern Netherlands during the same period further corroborates the popularity of this devotion.¹¹M. van Vlierden et al., Hout- en steensculptuur van Museum Catharijneconvent, ca. 1200-1600, coll. cat. Utrecht 2004, p. 250. I. Ippel, ‘A Christmas Crib as a Meek Heart of the Late Mediaeval Christian’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 62 (2014), pp. 330-47, esp. pp. 340-41 (citing previous literature).

The use of Christmas cribs was limited to the period between Christmas and Candlemas (fourteen days later). The rocking of the Christ Child, accompanied by special hymns and the ringing of bells attached to the crib, was a devotional practice with a strong symbolic character. Insight into the use of these Christmas objects of devotion can be obtained from a small book of collected sermons from 1565 in the possession of one Sister Weyncken, a nun in the Amsterdam monastery of the Clarisses.¹²M.L. Caron, ‘Pijpaarden beeldjes, individuele devotie en massacultuur’, in Vroomheid per dozijn, exh. cat. Utrecht (Rijksmuseum het Catharijneconvent) 1982, pp. 17-21, esp. pp. 19-20. These sermons were written by the sister’s confessor, a certain Father Bartholomaeus van Middelburg. She writes that he presented her with a Christmas crib ‘because we have seen how the children use a crib during this venerable period of Christmas, during which they rock Jesus, that dear little child, with sweet hymns of praise and great joy; and through this I was inspired to go seek out children and to have a crib of my own, so that all of us can together rock Jesus like small, meek children and hold [him] in our hearts, so that he will wish to remain in and near us for all eternity.’¹³(...) omdat wij hebben ghesien hoe die kinderen in dese werdigen tijt van kerstmis een wieghe ghebruycken, daer zij Jhesum, dat lieve kindeken in wieghen met soete lofsanghen ende met groeter blyschap en daerdoer bin ic verwect gheweest om de kinderkens te soecken ende te crijghen een wieghe, opdat wy al te samen als cleyne oetmoedighe kinderen Jesum alsoe moechten wieghen ende bewaeren in onser herten, dat hij in ons ende met ons altijts begheerden te blijven., see A. Ampe, ‘Uit de kerstvroomheid der 16de eeuw: Onbekend werk van Bartholomaeus van Middelburg’, Ons Geestelijk Erf 41 (1967), pp. 121-90, esp. pp. 171; see also M.L. Caron, ‘Pijpaarden beeldjes, individuele devotie en massacultuur’, in Vroomheid per dozijn, exh. cat. Utrecht (Rijksmuseum het Catharijneconvent) 1982, pp. 17-21, esp. pp. 19-20. He explained to Sister Weyncken how the crib was a symbol of the soul’s spiritual motherhood, to be seen as an allegory of the meek heart with which the nuns were to receive and care for the Christ Child. The two posts from which the crib hung stood for the Old and New Testaments; the small pillow stood for love and the white sheet for innocence and purity. The crib’s base symbolized unshakable faith. The same symbolism applies to the Amsterdam crib, which has a form comparable to that in Van Middelburg’s description.

Under the influence of the Reformation and the Counterreformation, the practice of rocking the Christ Child in his crib fell completely out of use in the latter half of the sixteenth century. With the disappearance of this devotional practice, most of these cribs were subsequently discarded. Today only a few dozen survive, with a majority being the simple, standing format.¹⁴Other smaller examples are known: two identical cribs executed in silver, preserved respectively at the Musée de Namur in Namur and the Virginia Museum in Richmond (see E. Niffle-Anciaux, ‘Le repos de Jésus et les berceaux réliquaires’, Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur 18 (1890); P. Keller, Die Wiege des Christuskindes: Ein Haushaltsgerät in Kunst und Kult, Worms 1998, nos. 3, 4); a painted, standing crib from the Groot Begijnhof of Leuven in New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. no. 1974.121A-D (Keller 1998, no. 7); Glasgow, The Burrell Collection (Keller 1998, no. 11); Washington, Smithsonian Institution (Keller 1998, no. 10); Amiens; Bibliothèque Municipale (a cradle from a now missing portal; Keller 1998, no. 17); and a standing crib in the former Goldschmidt collection, see A.C. Oellers, D. Preising, U. Schneider et al., In gotischer Gesellschaft: Spätmittelalterliche Skulpturen aus einer niederländischen Privatsammlung, exh. cat. Aachen (Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum) 1998, no. 46. Approximately ten are of the monumental type, which Keller described as ‘Gestellhängewiege’: a base supporting an open, portal- or baldachin-shaped frame from which a small cradle is suspended, thus enabling it to be physically rocked. ¹⁵Apart from the Rijksmuseum crib, eight other more or less complete gothic cribs of the Gestellhängewiege type have survived to the present day: 1. Cologne, Schnütgen Museum (see P. Keller, Die Wiege des Christuskindes: Ein Haushaltsgerät in Kunst und Kult, Worms 1998, no. 1); 2. Utrecht, Museum Catharijneconvent (hanging cradle with low base and no arch; Keller 1998, no. 16 and M. van Vlierden et al., Hout- en steensculptuur van Museum Catharijneconvent, ca. 1200-1600, coll. cat. Utrecht 2004, pp. 248-50); 3. Bruges, Sint-Godelieve Abbey (Keller 1998, no. 29); 4. Bruges, Sint-Janshospitaal (Keller 1998, no. 5); 5. Leuven, Groot-Begijnhof (Keller 1998, no. 18); 6. Edingen (Enghien), Sint-Nicolaaskerk (Keller 1998, no. 12); 7. Museum Mayer van den Bergh, Antwerp (hanging cradle with low base and no arch; Keller 1998, no. 8); 8. Paris, Musée de Cluny, Musée national du Moyen Âge, inv. no. Cl 23 607 (cradle hanging in the portal; Keller 1998, no. 15). See also E. Niffle-Anciaux, ‘Le repos de Jésus et les berceaux réliquaires: Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur 18 (1890), passim. The Amsterdam Christmas crib is one of the largest and most complete of its sort, together with a virtually identical example in the Musée Cluny (fig. a)¹⁶Paris, Musée de Cluny, Musée national du Moyen Âge, inv. no. Cl. 23 607; see M. Debaene (ed.), Borman: A Family of Northern Renaissance Sculptors, exh. cat. Leuven (Museum M) 2019, no. 125, with earlier literature. and a version in Antwerp of lesser height. Noteworthy is that a majority of these hanging cribs – to the extent their original provenance has been ascertained – can be situated in West Flanders (Bruges) or Brabant (Brussels, Leuven, Tienen).

The construction of the Amsterdam crib consists of an oblong, block-shaped base with in-curved corners. Resting on four recumbent lion figures, the base itself is decorated in the round with metselrie, i.e. gothic openwork tracery. A rising gothic, arched frame, surmounted by pinnacles and spiraling colonettes, adorns the base; the upper section is decorated with ‘broken’ gothic tracery. The rocking cradle is suspended within this arch, and swings on two small pegs made of bone. The cradle itself is ornately decorated with open gothic tracery in the form of interweaving, heart-shaped trefoils, with each of the four corner posts surmounted by a small pinnacle. Its design and construction were clearly modelled after actual cradles built for newborn infants at this time, such as that of Philip the Fair from circa 1478 (fig. b).¹⁷Brussels, Art and History Museum, inv. no. 360, see P. Vandenbroeck and M. Ángel Zalama (eds.), Filips de Schone: De schoonheid en de waanzin/Felipe I el Hermoso: La belleza y la locura, exh. cat. Bruges (Bruggemuseum/Onthaalkerk Onze-Lieve-Vrouw)/Burgos (Casa del Cordón) 2006-07, p. 240 (ill.).

The style of the design and the tracery – highly akin to the metselrie work encountered on altarpieces produced in Brussels, Mechelen and Antwerp during this same period – points to the early sixteenth century as a date of origin.¹⁸Dr Matt Ethan Kavaler, University of Toronto: ‘Brussels, c. 1510-1520’ on the basis of the tracery (written communication, 24 August 2013). See also I. Ippel, ‘A Christmas Crib as a Meek Heart of the Late Mediaeval Christian’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 62 (2014), pp. 330-47, esp. pp. 331-36. Brussels is the most likely place of production, as the strong agreement with metselrie patterns in altarpieces bearing the mark of that city leaves little doubt in this respect. Relevant examples are a Passion altar in the Art and History Museum in Brussels (c. 1490-1500),¹⁹Brussels, Art and History Museum, inv. no. V 198 (the so-called Vermeersch retable), see B. D’Hainaut-Zveny (ed.), Miroirs du sacré: Les retables sculptés à Bruxelles XVe-XVIe siècles: Production, Formes et usages, Brussels 2005, p. 169, no. A 10. and the Marian altar at Boussu-lez-Mons (c. 1515-20)²⁰B. D’Hainaut-Zveny (ed.), Miroirs du sacré: Les retables sculptés à Bruxelles XVe-XVIe siècles: Production, Formes et usages, Brussels 2005, p. 161, no. A 3. and the altar of St Reineldis at Saintes (1490-1500).²¹B. D’Hainaut-Zveny (ed.), Miroirs du sacré: Les retables sculptés à Bruxelles XVe-XVIe siècles: Production, Formes et usages, Brussels 2005, p. 184, no. A 21. This finding is further substantiated by the presence of the bell-shaped tracery pattern, a motif relatively seldom encountered in Southern Netherlandish tracery. This motif occurs only a number of times, with some variation, exclusively on several Brussels altarpieces produced in the last decade of the fifteenth century. Outside of Brussels, the motif is non-existent during this period.²²The only exception appears to be the crowning element of the St Dimpna retable in Geel, an altarpiece ordered in Mechelen in 1515 to house the reliquary of Dimpna. See R. de Boodt and U. Schäfer, Vlaamse retabels: Een internationale reis langs laatmiddeleeuws beeldsnijwerk, Leuven 2007, pp. 191-93. The bell-shaped tracery pattern appears, for instance, on the aforementioned Passion altarpiece in the Art and History Museum in Brussels (c. 1490-1500) and the altarpiece from Gestel-Meerhout in the same collection.²³Brussels, Art and History Museum, inv. no. 426, see I. Ippel, ‘A Christmas Crib as a Meek Heart of the Late Mediaeval Christian’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 62 (2014), pp. 330-47, esp. p. 333 and figs. 6-7. My thanks to Emile van Binnebeke, Brussels, for drawing my attention to important similarities with the Gestel-Meerhout retable. The most significant agreement, however, is the tracery on the large St George Altar (1493) in the same museum, the principal, signed work of the Brussels sculptor Jan Borman II (c. 1460-c. 1520). In both cases, we find a vertical tripartite articulation demarcated by pinnacles, with the arches in each segment essentially forming a semicircle. The crowning element of each segment is the ‘bell’ motif, from which gothic fleurons spring. In the case of the Christmas crib, it appears, the same motif is applied in a more advanced and slender form. Here the fleurons have been transformed into small curls. At both the head and the foot of the cradle, the same motif is repeated in a more compact and elementary form. An additional similarity to the St George Altar can be observed in the form and composition of the pilasters and the pinnacles. This similarity is additionally supported by the fact that both the crib and this large retable were executed in non-polychromed oak.²⁴B. D’Hainaut-Zveny (ed.), Miroirs du sacré: Les retables sculptés à Bruxelles XVe-XVIe siècles: Production, Formes et usages, Brussels 2005, p. 170 (no. A 11). The same style of metselrie – but then without the bell-shaped tracery pattern – appears in the Mary and Joseph retable from Saluzzo, which is certain to have been commissioned in Brussels around 1500 by the Pensi di Mondovi e Marsaglia family of Saluzzo for the family chapel in the cathedral of Mondovi (Piemonte).²⁵Brussels, Museum of the City Brussels (Broodhuis), inv. no. 1.5.1- 1.5.2; see J. de Borchgrave d’Altena, Het St-Joris-Retabel van Jan Borman, Antwerp 1947; B. D’Hainaut-Zveny (ed.), Miroirs du sacré: Les retables sculptés à Bruxelles XVe-XVIe siècles: Production, Formes et usages, Brussels 2005, p. 165 (no. A 7). This altarpiece has been attributed on stylistic grounds to the Borman workshop.²⁶M. Debaene (ed.), Borman: A Family of Northern Renaissance Sculptors, exh. cat. Leuven (Museum M) 2019, p. 96 and no. 235.

Assuming the metselrie on the St George Altar was designed and executed in the Borman workshop – not by a separate, specialized metselrie-carver, as was the custom in Antwerp²⁷I. Ippel, ‘A Christmas Crib as a Meek Heart of the Late Mediaeval Christian’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 62 (2014), pp. 330-47, esp. p. 335 proffers the possibility that an individual such as the specialized metselrie-carver Jan Petercels, who collaborated with Jan Borman on a regular basis, could have been responsible for the carving of the crib. – then the Christmas crib’s attribution to the same atelier/studio seems evident. Around 1500, it was the most important woodcarving workshop in Brussels. Stemming from the aforementioned altarpiece, Jan Borman II was even described in no uncertain terms as the beste meester beeldsnijdere (best master carver) in a document of 1493.²⁸Leuven, Stadsarchief, inv. no. 11772, fol. 21; see B. D’Hainaut-Zveny (ed.), Miroirs du sacré: Les retables sculptés à Bruxelles XVe-XVIe siècles: Production, Formes et usages, Brussels 2005, p. 165 (no. A 7). In such a case, small-scale products such as the Rijksmuseum crib would have been a secondary specialization, occurring alongside the production of large retables. The possibility that these major workshops also made small-scale objects is a theory that has remained heretofore unaddressed, as art historical inquiry has focused almost exclusively on the production of monumental altarpieces. Lastly, the exceptional high quality of the woodcarving suggests that – just as with the large Borman retables in Brussels and Herenthals – polychromy was never involved nor intended.²⁹The carving’s high quality has been confirmed by the Rijksmuseum’s furniture conservators Iskander Breebaart and Paul van Duin. In their view, the carving of such refined tracery in oak is an exceedingly difficult task. The existence of the aforementioned, almost identical crib in the Musée Cluny and a cradle without its frame preserved in the Burrell Collection in Glasgow confirms that the production of these objects involved a certain element of standardization.³⁰P. Keller, Die Wiege des Christuskindes: Ein Haushaltsgerät in Kunst und Kult, Worms 1998, no. 11. The Glasgow cradle is somewhat more ornate in its execution, with gilding and the presence of small figures adorning the corner posts. Despite these minor differences, this work is closely related to the Amsterdam and Paris cribs and can therefore be considered as a product of the same workshop.

Particularly noteworthy is the close agreement between the Amsterdam Christmas crib and the crib preserved in the Musée Cluny (fig. a).³¹Paris, Musée de Cluny, Musée national du Moyen Âge, inv. no. Cl. 23 607; purchased at sale Paris (Hôtel Drouot), 16 November 1998 (Étude Tajan), no. 25. The overall form, dimensions³²Crib: h. 63 x w. 35 x d. 16.5 cm; original storage chest: h. 69 x w. 41 x d. 21.5 cm. and style are precisely the same, with the only discernible variation being the pattern of the tracery of the arched frame and the sides of the cradle. This difference is negligible, however, as these sections of the Paris crib were recently shown to be relatively modern reconstructions from shortly before 1914.³³A recently discovered old photo of the Paris crib reveals that a number of essential components were restored prior to its being sold at auction in 1914: the traceries in the upright sides of the moving cradle and in the arched frame are modern reconstructions, as are the four lion-figured feet. Still present at this time were two tiny bells on the pointed underside of the moving cradle’s short sides. See KIK-IRPA, object no. 11007702, esp. cliché no. E049573. My thanks to Iris Ippel for providing this information (written communication, 1 September 2015). The same applies to its four supporting lions, which are rendered less convincingly than the original ones of the Amsterdam crib.³⁴Similar carved lions also support the bench on which St Eligius sits, a work likewise attributed to Jan Borman II, see M. Debaene (ed.), Borman: A Family of Northern Renaissance Sculptors, exh. cat. Leuven (Museum M) 2019, no. 117. Nevertheless, the Paris crib still has three of its original six bells. The striking similarities between the two cribs can only mean that both were made in the same Brussels workshop (most likely that of Jan Borman II). Moreover, the Parisian crib is accompanied by its original chest in which it could be stored when not in use. The doors of the chest are painted with the coats of arms of two prominent Brussels families, the Cockaerts and Van Cattenbroecks.³⁵See sale Paris (Galerie Georges Petit), 25-28 May 1914, no. 389 and P. Keller, Die Wiege des Christuskindes: Ein Haushaltsgerät in Kunst und Kult, Worms 1998, pp. 200-01. Ippel links these arms to the Brussels silk merchant Gérard Cockaert (d. 1546) and his second wife, Marguerite-Madeleine van Cattenbroeck (d. 1540), who were married shortly after the death of Gérard’s first wife in 1509.³⁶For these prominent Brussels families, see Folklore Brabançon, 81-83 (1935), p. 205: _ Les Cockaert furent seigneurs de Curgies et sont alliés aux van Assche, van Cattenbroeck, van Overdyle, Laoust, van Gindertaelen, Boote, Voorsthuys, van Parys etc. etc_; further D. Illmer, H. de Ridder-Symoens and C. Ridderikhoff, Les livres des procurateurs de la nation Germanique de l’ancienne université d’Orléans, vol. 1, Biographies des étudiants, 1516-1546, Leiden 1978, p. 121: Philippe van Zeebroeck wedded Catherine van Cattenbroeck on 3 December 1503; possibly in a second marriage with Gertrude van Arcle, who had a son named Augustin Cockaert (no. 439). The Paris crib might possibly have been in the successive possession of both women. More likely, however, is that the crib(s) was (were) commissioned by Gérard Cockaert (d. 1546) and his second wife, Marguerite-Madeleine van Cattenbroeck (d. 1540), who married shortly after 1509, see also I. Ippel, ‘A Christmas Crib as a Meek Heart of the Late Mediaeval Christian’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 62 (2014), pp. 330-47, esp. p. 336. A potentially significant factor is that another member of the Van Cattenbroek family – Jan Baptist – is mentioned as being a member of the Brussels Confraternity of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin, which had its seat in the city’s Sint-Gorikskerk.³⁷S. Speakman Sutch, ‘Patronage, foundation history, and ordinary believers. The membership registry of the Brussels Seven Sorrows Confraternity’, in E.S. Thelen and S. Speakman Sutch (eds.), The Seven Sorrows Confraternity of Brussels: Drama, Ceremony, and Art Patronage (16th-17th centuries), (Studies in European Urban History (1100-1800) 37) Turnhout 2015, pp. 19-48, esp. p. 43 (fol. 141). One of this elite group’s earliest members was none other than the sculptor Jan Borman II.³⁸E. Roobaert and T.R. Jacobs, ‘An Uncelebrated Patron of Brussels Artists: St. Gorik’s Confraternity of Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows (1499-1516)’, in E.S. Thelen and S. Speakman Sutch (eds.), The Seven Sorrows Confraternity of Brussels: Drama, Ceremony, and Art Patronage (16th-17th centuries), (Studies in European Urban History (1100-1800) 37) Turnhout 2015, pp. 93-112, esp. pp. 94-95, 97 and 100-03.

A close examination of the photo featured in the 1914 auction catalogue reveals that some kind of switch is certain to have occurred around this time. Although the construction of the Christmas crib appearing in the photo is identical to the crib in the Musée Cluny, the swinging cradle is in fact the one from the Rijksmuseum crib. In other words, both objects appear to have been in the possession of the same individual, who at some point exchanged the two cradles, together with the small silver bells along the lower edge.³⁹I. Ippel, ‘A Christmas Crib as a Meek Heart of the Late Mediaeval Christian’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 62 (2014), pp. 330-47, esp. pp. 341-43. This owner was possibly also responsible for the reconstructions of the missing elements on both the bed and the tracery of the arched frame of the crib in the Musée Cluny. Given the nature of these reconstructions it becomes clear that the individual who made these modifications was aware of the decoration scheme on the Amsterdam crib, to which he generally adhered, including the four recumbent lion-figure feet supporting the crib’s base. The aim of this switch was perhaps to procure one complete crib with hanging bells – versus two incomplete objects – to be sold together with the wooden storage chest. The exchange of the two cradles is therefore certain to have taken place (shortly) after the auction sale of the Sambon collection, in all probability switched by Sambon himself, perhaps at the sale in consultation with the buyer.

Frits Scholten, 2024

Literature

J. De Coo (ed.), Catalogus 2: Beeldhouwkunst, plaketten, antiek, coll. cat. Antwerp (Museum Mayer van den Bergh) 1969, p. 159; P. Keller, Die Wiege des Christuskindes: Ein Haushaltsgerät in Kunst und Kult, Worms 1998, pp. 86-87, 89, 97, 200-01 (no. 15); I. Ippel, ‘A Christmas Crib as a Meek Heart of the Late Mediaeval Christian’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 62 (2014), pp. 330-47; F. Scholten (ed.), 1100-1600, coll. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 2015, no. 38; M. Bagnoli (ed.), A Feast for the Senses: Art and Experience in Medieval Europe, New Haven/London 2016, pp. 39, 175-77; M. Debaene (ed.), Borman: A Family of Northern Renaissance Sculptors, exh. cat. Leuven (Museum M) 2019, no. 126

Citation

F. Scholten, 2024, 'attributed to Borman werkplaats, Christmas Crib, Brussels, c. 1500 - c. 1510', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.528311

(accessed 18 July 2025 12:16:48).

Figures

fig. a Christmas Crib, c. 1500-10. Paris, Musée de Cluny, Musée national du Moyen Âge, inv. no. Cl. 23 607
fig. a Christmas Crib, c. 1500-10. Paris, Musée de Cluny, Musée national du Moyen Âge, inv. no. Cl. 23 607
fig. b Cradle, Flanders, c. 1478. Oak with polychromy and gilding, 83 x 145 x 75 cm. Brussels, Art and History Museum, inv. no. 360
fig. a Christmas Crib, c. 1500-10. Paris, Musée de Cluny, Musée national du Moyen Âge, inv. no. Cl. 23 607