Sculpted in relief.

Good.

…; donated to the museum by the Heim Gallery, London, 1970

Object number: BK-1970-138

Credit line: Gift of Kunsthandel Heim Gallery

The Namur-born sculptor Pierre-François Le Roy (1739-1812) was apprenticed to Laurent Delvaux (1696-1778) in Nivelles from May 1760 to November 1761.¹¹For biographical data, see A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, pp. 80-82. It is not known whether he kept in touch with his teacher, but Le Roy would remain true to Delvaux’ late baroque classicism for the rest of his life. In addition, he literally copied his master’s work on several occasions. Examples of this practice are a terracotta Virgin and Child, which Le Roy probably sculpted while still under the aegis of Delvaux, and a marble Sleeping Putto of 1786.²²A. Jacobs and J. Toussaint, Les Le Roy (XVIIIe-XXe s.): Une dynastie d’artistes, exh. cat. Namur (Musée des Arts anciens du Namurois) 2006, nos. 1 and 20. The present Mater Dolorosa, dated 1762, was created not long after Le Roy had left Nivelles, and also is a true copy of a prototype by Delvaux, who in turn had based the Virgin’s heavenward gaze and slightly open mouth on a well-known, much-copied invention of Guido Reni (cf. RP-P-1910-6890).³³A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, p. 399.

Laurent Delvaux’ marble prototype can be found in the Art and History Museum in Brussels, where it is accompanied by a comparable oval marble relief with a bust of Christ as Ecce Homo.⁴⁴A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, nos. S 197 and S 195 respectively. For the Mater Dolorosa, see KIK-IRPA object no. 20058614. These works are both signed and come from the sculptor’s estate. However, since mother and son are facing in the same direction and the reliefs are not the same size, they could not possibly have been designed as pendants. Both items are undated, but Le Roy’s copy of 1762 provides a reliable terminus ante quem for his teacher’s prototype, which would have been made a little earlier.⁵⁵A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, p. 400. The relief portraying the Virgin was particularly popular, considering the numerous replicas made of it, also by Delvaux himself.⁶⁶A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, nos. S 198-202. Moreover, the sculptor made a variant in which Mary is indeed turning her head towards her son, thus permitting use of the two as pendants.⁷⁷A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, nos. S 196 and S 202. But the Virgin’s right-facing version was also replicated many times for independent use.⁸⁸Cf. A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, nos. S 203-205 and sale London (Sotheby’s), 8 July 2011, no. 95.

Careful comparison indicates that the draping on Le Roy’s medallion is the most closely akin to the above-mentioned prototype in Brussels, and the Virgin’s physiognomy most resembles an unsigned, rectangular version that could perhaps be ascribed to Delvaux, but of which the present whereabouts are unknown.⁹⁹A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, no. S 200. The differences in these examples regarding the width of the pleats and the proportions of the Virgin’s face are only minimal, suggesting that Le Roy had had at his disposal one of his teacher’s examples (or a cast thereof) which he could duplicate exactly.

In Brussels, apart from Delvaux’ prototype, there is also an undated, unsigned plaster version of the composition.¹⁰¹⁰A. Jacobs and J. Toussaint, Les Le Roy (XVIIIe-XXe s.): Une dynastie d’artistes, exh. cat. Namur (Musée des Arts anciens du Namurois) 2006, no. 3. Halsema-Kubes, who mistakenly thought this was an object made of pipe clay, suggested that it might have been Le Roy’s model,¹¹¹¹W. Halsema-Kubes, ‘Keuze uit de aanwinsten’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 19 (1971), p. 32; J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, p. 302. although it could also concern a cast after the marble. The Virgin’s physiognomy and the falling folds of her garment are indeed almost identical, but the plaster figure appears to be somewhat smaller than the version in marble.¹²¹²Based on the outer measurements of the two objects. For an accurate comparison the internal measurements should be compared.

Bieke van der Mark, 2026

Jaarverslag Nederlandse Rijksmusea 1970, p. 37; J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, no. 424; A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, p. 400; Jacobs in A. Jacobs and J. Toussaint, Les Le Roy (XVIIIe-XXe s.): Une dynastie d’artistes, exh. cat. Namur (Musée des Arts anciens du Namurois) 2006, no. 2

B. van der Mark, 2026, 'Pierre-François le Roy, Mater Dolorosa _, Namen (stad), 1762', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), _European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/20035865