The Virgin as Mater Dolorosa (Our Lady of Sorrows)

Modelled, fired and polychromed with oil paint. The sculpture is hollow and has been modelled and finished in the round; an arched opening has been made in the reverse. The front is smoothly finished; on the reverse, traces of a toothed modelling trowel are discernible through the paint. The colour of the clay ranges from beige (interior) to orange (exterior) and contains hard, minuscule black grains.¹¹Visible under the microscope, see A. Lorne, Documentatie en behandelingsverslag, 30 November 2011, p. 1.

The sculpture’s condition, particularly the polychromy, was analysed by Laurent Sozzani (15 March 2011) and Aleth Lorne (November 2011).²²A. Lorne, Documentatie en behandelingsverslag, 30 November 2011. Their findings largely corroborate the condition as described in 1992.³³A. Radcliffe, M. Baker and M. Maek-Gérard, The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection: Renaissance and Later Sculpture: With Works of Art in Bronze, coll. cat. Madrid 1992, p. 418. Various layers of paint can be discerned, with the most recent layers only partly intact. The flesh tones of the face have been applied directly to the fired clay ground and represent a very early phase. Beneath this painting are what appear to be traces of tears. The white of the veil and wimple has been applied to a thick layer of hide glue; at least two thick layers are present, with dark-grey remnants (of old varnish?) in areas. The blue of Mary’s mantle was originally applied to the clay with a thin layer of hide glue. Remnants of this original (azure) blue painting are present but largely concealed by various overpaintings. One of these is a strong blue layer with highly coarse pigments, likely from the nineteenth century. The most recent layer is a thick, blue overpainting, most of which has been removed on the front of the sculpture but left intact on the reverse. It was previously covered by a dark-red layer decorated with small stars, as mentioned in the 1906 auction catalogue and partly visible in the accompanying photo.⁴⁴A. Feulner, Sammlung Schloss Rohoncz., vol. 3, Plastik und Kunsthandwerk, Lugano-Castagnola 1941, p. 35; sale Paris (Galerie Georges Petit) 4-7 April 1906, no. 310 (with ill.). This layer was subsequently removed at some point between 1906 and 1941.⁵⁵A. Feulner, Sammlung Schloss Rohoncz., vol. 3, Plastik und Kunsthandwerk, Lugano-Castagnola 1941, p. 35 and no. 66 (with ill.). The folds along the front bottom edge in front have been restored and partly reconstructed, and date from prior to 1906. The bust previously stood on an old base (now missing) circa 17 cm in height, thus explaining the disparate height measurement stated in the catalogues of the Thyssen collection in Lugano-Castagnola.⁶⁶The height (61 cm) stated in the catalogues of the Thyssen collection in Lugano-Castagnola also includes the ancienne monture, see R.J. Heinemann, Collection Château Rohoncz, coll. cat. Lugano-Castagnola (Villa Favorita) 1959, p. 103 (no. K 66).

…; ? acquired in Spain,⁷⁷The bust could already have been sent to Spain as a Habsburg possession as early as the 16th century; for a similar transferal, see J. Duverger, ‘Margareta van Oostenrijk (1480-1530) en de Italiaanse Renaissance’, in G. Denhaene (ed.), Relations artistiques entre les Pays-Bas et l’Italie à la Renaissance: Études dédiées à Suzanne Sulzberger (Études d’Histoire de l’art 4 ) Brussels 1980, pp. 127-42, esp. p. 135. by Dmitri Egorovich Schevitch (‘Baron de Schevitch’) (1839-1906), c. 1900;⁸⁸Dmitri Egorovich Schevitch was a Russian diplomat who ended his career as ambassador in Madrid (1896-1905). Prior to this, Schevitch served at missions and embassies in Naples (1860-62), Rome (1862-63), Stuttgart (secretary of the Russian mission) and Württemberg (1863-67), Stockholm (1867-69), Florence, Naples and Rome (1869-83), Tokyo (as minister plenipotentiary, 1886-92), and Lisbon (1892-96). Schevitch was married to Vera Fedorovna Mengden (d. 1913), the daughter of Baron Fedor Mengden. He died in Versailles and laid to rest at the Russian cemetery in Wiesbaden. My thanks to Maria Gordusenko for this information. Dmitri Schevitch was an esteemed art collector, with a preference for Asian and medieval art, see for example A. Lumb Macdonnell, Reminiscences of Diplomatic Life, being Stray Memories of Personalities and Incidents Connected with Several European Courts and also with Life in South-America Fifty Years Ago, London 1913, pp. 274-75: ‘M. de Schevitch was an ardent collector and subsequently, when Ambassador at Madrid, acquired that wonderful bust with sapphire eye, which caused so much discussion in antiquarian circles’. For Schevitch in Japan, see also A.C. Gunter, My Japanese Prince, New York 1904. his sale, Paris (Galerie Georges Petit), 4-7 April 1906, no. 310, frs. 6000, to (? Jules) Lowengard, Paris; ⁹⁹Copy RKD, with ‘Lowengard’ in the margin. This likely refers to the Parisian dealer Jacques Jules Lowengard (d. 1909), though the annotation could also be referring to Charles Lowengard (d. 1923), a Parisian banker and art collector, located at 26, Avenue des Champs Elysées. The possible family connection between Jacques Jules and Charles is unclear. Jacques Jules Lowengard was married to Esther Duveen, the sister of the dealer Joseph Duveen. Their son, Armand Lowengard (1893-1943), was co-director of the Duveen gallery, together with Edward Fowles, see for example M. Secrest, Duveen, a Life in Art, New York 2004, pp. 37, 67. The Mater Dolorosa is not listed in the sales of Lowengard’s dealership inventory in 1910 and 1911 - largely consisting of Flemish tapestries and medieval art (see his sale Paris (Drouot), 10 June 1910 and 3-4 March 1911). Considering his penchant for the Middle Ages, Jacques Jules Lowengard is the most likely purchaser of the bust. In that case, the bust was either re-sold it prior to his death in 1909 or it perhaps came into the possession of his brother-in-law, Duveen. The Rijksmuseum purchased the Martelli Stemma (<a href="https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/BK-NM-11904/catalogus-entry">inv. no. BK-NM-11904</a>) from the dealer Löwengard in London in 1905. The Mater Dolorosa is also listed nowhere in the auction catalogue (1923) of Charles Lowengard’s collection (my thanks to the late Erik Löffler, The Hague). …; acquired by Baron Heinrich Thyssen (1875-1947), The Hague/Villa Favorita, Lugano-Castagnola, probably between 1930-38,¹⁰¹⁰The bust is not mentioned in the 1930 catalogue of the Thyssen collection (Sammlung Schloss Rohoncz: Plastik und Kunstgewerbe, exh. cat. Munich (Neue Pinacothek) 1930) and must therefore only have been acquired after this year, though probably before 1938. In the period prior to that year Thyssen made many acquisitions for his Villa Favorita in Lugano-Castagnola. He had moved there from The Hague in 1932. My thanks to Maria de Peverelli for this information (written communication, 23 July 2015). first recorded in 1941;¹¹¹¹A. Feulner, Sammlung Schloss Rohoncz., vol. 3, Plastik und Kunsthandwerk, Lugano-Castagnola 1941, p. 35 and no. 66. his son Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen (1921-2002), Villa Favorita, Lugano-Castagnola, 1947; on loan to Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid, 1996-2004;¹²¹²Madrid, Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, inv. no. K 66. his heirs, Madrid, 2002; whose sale, London (Sotheby’s, private treaty), €750.000, to the Rijksmuseum Fonds, with the support of the BankGiro Loterij, 2011

ObjectNumber: BK-2011-31

Credit line: Purchased with the support of the BankGiro Lottery

At the time this compelling and moving bust of Mary was sold at auction in Madrid as part of the collection of the Russian ambassador Dmitri Schevitch (1839-1906),¹⁸¹⁸In A. Radcliffe, M. Baker and M. Maek-Gérard, The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection: Renaissance and Later Sculpture: With Works of Art in Bronze, coll. cat. Madrid 1992, p. 418, the piece is erroneously described as coming from the Scheikevitch collection. it was said to be a work of sculpture made by the painter El Greco (1541-1614).¹⁹¹⁹It is assumed that El Greco also worked as a sculptor, though the evidence of such activity is extremely sparse, see D. Davies (ed.), El Greco, exh. cat. London (National Gallery)/New York (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 2003, nos. 67, 68. For a painted Mater Dolorosa by El Greco, see ibid., no. 37. This work has been preserved in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Strasbourg since 1893. In Schevitch’s day, a replica was hanging in the Prado in Madrid (inv. no. 829). In the foreword of the sale catalogue, the French art historian Émile Molinier formulated his attribution as follows: ‘[…] but surely this polychrome Virgin, this Mater Dolorosa, which, in its original state, was to accompany a Christ, is without fail a work of the first order that deserves to be given a primary place in the history of Spanish sculpture. The attribution to El Greco, I repeat, is based not only on the proportions of the entire figure, but also on the physiognomic expression, an expression complemented by the polychromy. It is an attribution that is as certain as it can be in the absence of any written document. Until proven otherwise, one can view this piece as a highly intriguing example of El Greco, transformed into a sculptor’.²⁰²⁰mais, à coup sûr, cette Vierge polychromée, cette Vierge de Douleur qui, à l’origine, devait accompagner un Christ, est certainement une oeuvre de premier ordre, qui mérite de tenir une des premières places dans l’histoire de la sculpture espagnole. L’attibution au Greco, je le répète, repose non seulement sur les proportions données à la figure tout entière, mais encore sur l’expression de la physionomie, expression que complète la polychromie. Il y a là une attribution aussi certaine qu’on peut la faire en l’absence de tout document écrit. Jusqu’à preuve contraire, on peut considérer ce morceau comme un spécimen très interessant du Greco, transformée en sculpteur, see E. Molinier, ‘Préface’, in the catalogue of the sale collection Schevitch, Paris (Galerie Georges Petit), 4-7 April 1906, p. 12. In Spain, the iconographic type of the Mater Dolorosa as a life-like bust was very popular chiefly in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was based on examples of 15th-century Flemish painting. For these later Spanish dolorosas, see M. Trusted, Spanish Sculpture: Catalogue of the Post-Medieval Spanish Sculpture in Wood, Terracotta, Alabaster, Marble, Stone, Lead and Jet in the Victoria and Albert Museum, coll. cat. London 1996, no. 46, and X. Bray et al., The Sacred Made Real: Spanish Painting and Sculpture 1600-1700, London 2009, nos. 21 a, b and 22.

It is not known where or from whom Schevitch acquired the bust. A reconstruction likewise proves infeasible, stemming from the ambassador’s numerous peregrinations spanning his diplomatic career. The old attribution to El Greco, an artist rediscovered by art historians in the nineteenth century, nevertheless suggests the bust was acquired in Spain, possibly via one of the so-called revendadoras who mediated in the sale of artworks formerly owned by the destitute families of the Spanish aristocracy.²¹²¹See A. Lumb Macdonnell, Reminiscences of Diplomatic Life, being Stray Memories of Personalities and Incidents Connected with Several European Courts and also with Life in South-America Fifty Years Ago, London 1913, pp. 274-75: ‘The finest things are not to be found in the shops; but there is an extraordinary class of old hags, called ‘Revendedoras’, who are entrusted by the owners of these treasures, generally members of the proud and ruined aristocracy, to dispose of them. On one occasion we were brought a little shagreen case, containing three small figures about 8 inches high, in silver-gilt, grouped round a crystal column, representing the flagellation of Christ. Hugh was much struck with it, especially as all the well-authenticated documents proved it beyond doubt to be the work of Benvenuto Cellini. Not being able to acquire it ourselves, we gave the good dame who brought it, a letter to our friend and colleague the Russian minister M. de Schevitch, who was delighted with it, and willingly paid 400 for it. M. de Schevitch was an ardent collector and subsequently, when Ambassador at Madrid, acquired that wonderful bust of Christ with sapphire eye, which caused so much discussion in antiquarian circles.’ A Spanish provenance would also explain the earlier polychromy on Mary’s mantle, embellished with a pattern of small stars or flowers. This (eighteenth- or nineteenth-century?) overpainting, as yet visible in a photo appearing in the auction catalogue of 1906, was later removed.²²²²A. Feulner, Sammlung Schloss Rohoncz., vol. 3, Plastik und Kunsthandwerk, Lugano-Castagnola 1941, p. 35 and no. 66. Remarkably, the entry in the same catalogue failed to adopt Molinier’s characterization of the Mater Dolorosa as a Spanish work, as stated in the preface. Instead, the bust is described as a fifteenth-century Flemish work – a far more credible attribution.

In the Southern Netherlands, the iconographic type of the half-length portrait of the Virgin in mourning was developed as a painted Andachtsbild by Rogier van der Weyden (c. 1400-1464) and his direct followers in the second half of the fifteenth century.²³²³S. Ringbom, Icon to Narrative: The Rise of the Dramatic Close-Up in 15th-Century Devotional Painting (Acta Academiae Aboensis, A Humanoria 31:2) Åbo 1965, pp. 39-71 (esp. pp. 62-63) and pp. 126-27. The Virgin appears as the standard pendant of the Man of Sorrows in painted diptychs and as Christ’s counterpart in close-up depictions of the Lamentation (e.g. SK-A-856).²⁴²⁴S. Ringbom, Icon to Narrative: The Rise of the Dramatic Close-Up in 15th-Century Devotional Painting (Acta Academiae Aboensis, A Humanoria 31:2) Åbo 1965, pp. 127-41 and figs. 81-109; V. Henderiks et al., Blut und Tränen: Albrecht Bouts und das Antlitz der Passion, exh. cat. Luxemburg (Nationalmuseum für Geschichte und Kunst)/Aachen (Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum) 2016-17, nos. 8-10, 12, 23, 24, 32, 33 and 36. Examples of this type of devotional portrait are found in the oeuvres of painters such as Hans Memling, Dieric and Aelbert Bouts, and Simon Marmion.²⁵²⁵M.J. Friedländer (with comments and notes by N. Veronee-Verhaegen), Early Netherlandish Painting, vol. 6, Hans Memlinc and Gerard David, Leiden/Brussels 1971, nos. 5, 13, 37, 41; M.J. Friedländer (with comments and notes by N. Veronee-Verhaegen), Early Netherlandish Painting, vol. 3, Dieric Bouts and Joos van Gent, Leiden/Brussels 1968, nos. 63, 83. The emergence of this iconographic type coincides with the growing popularity of Marian devotion, particularly in the context of her Seven Sorrows as propagated by various confraternities in the Low Countries.

The veneration and contemplation of the Virgin’s life in sorrow first arose in the thirteenth century. Netherlandish expressions of this specific compassio Mariae date from the fifteenth century onward.²⁶²⁶C.M. Schuler, ‘The Seven Sorrows of the Virgin: Popular Culture and Cultic Imagery in Pre-Reformation Europe’, Simiolus 21 (1992), no. 1/2, pp. 5-28. Towards the end of that century, this devotion assumed a standard form centring on seven more explicitly formulated sorrows.²⁷²⁷Specifically, Simeon’s Prophecy, the Flight into Egypt, the Loss of the Child Jesus in the Temple, the Meeting of Mary and Jesus on the Via Dolorosa, the Crucifixion, the Descent from the Cross and the Burial of Christ. A key figure in its dissemination in the Low Countries was Jan van Coudenberghe, a cleric who served as secretary to Philip the Good, Charles V and Margaret of Austria.²⁸²⁸B.A. van de Kerckhove, Geschiedenis van het koninglyke broederschap der zeven weedommen van Maria¬, Bruges 1860, pp. 71-76 and 102-20; J.A.F. Kronenburg, Maria’s heerlijkheid in Nederland, vol. 2, Amsterdam 1904, pp. 211-79; E.H.F. de Ridder, ‘De devotie tot O.L.Vrouw van VII Weeën, haar ontstaan’, in Handelingen van het Vlaamsch Maria-Congres, vol. 2, Brussels 1922; A. Duclos, De eerste eeuw van het Broederschap der Zeven Weedommen van Maria in Sint-Salvators te Brugge, Bruges 1922, pp. 87-104; F. de Ridder, ‘Brief van Petrus de Manso over de VII Weeën van Maria’, Mechlinia: Maandschrift voor oudheidkunde, geschiedenis, kunst en volkskunde 2 (1922), pp. 23-30; J. Fruytier, ‘Jan van Coudenberghe’, in Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek, vol. 7, Leiden 1927, pp. 333-34; A J. Koenders, Maria in den eeredienst der Katholieke Kerk, vol. 3, Amsterdam 1937, pp. 111-30; D.P. Oosterbaan, ‘De Zeven Smarten van Maria’, Archief voor de geschiedenis van de Katholieke Kerk in Nederland 5 (1963), pp. 94-125; G.T.M. Lemmens, ‘Drie fragmenten van een Nederrijnse Zeven-Smartencyclus’, in A. Horodisch (ed.), De Arte et Libris: Festschrift Erasmus Antiquariaat en Boekhandel, Amsterdam 1984, pp. 291-300; T. Graas, ‘Verloren gegane Lukas-Madonna’s te Reimerswaal en Abbenbroek’, in P. Le Blanc (ed.), Christelijke iconografie: Opstellen over iconografische aspecten van het Nederlands kerkelijk kunstbezit, The Hague 1990, pp. 12-26. S. Speakman Sutch and A.L. van Bruaene, ‘The Seven Sorrows of the Virgin Mary: Devotional Communication and Politics in the Burgundian-Habsburg Low Countries, c. 1490-1520’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 60 (2010), pp. 252-78. D.S. Areford, The Art of Empathy: The Mother of Sorrows in Northern Renaissance Art and Devotion, exh. cat. Jacksonville (Cummer Museum of Art and Gardens) 2013, esp. pp. 33-42; 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. In his role as dean of Reimerswaal (Zeeland), Van Coudenberghe commissioned a painting that depicted the theme of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin, to be hung in his own church around 1491-92. It was the first in a series of three, with two other paintings hung respectively in the Sint-Salvatorkerk in Bruges and the Sint-Aegidiuskerk Abbenbroek (South Holland) in 1492-94. All three paintings were copies modelled after a renowned and venerated eleventh-century icon in the Santa Maria in Aracoeli in Rome. The Latin inscriptions emblazoned on these works encouraged worshippers to contemplate The Virgin’s sorrow with the words Disce, salutator, nostros meminisse dolores septenos (Learn, my caller, to contemplate my sorrows, seven in number). In 1492, Van Coudenberghe also founded a confraternity for the devotion of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin in Bruges, which also drew followers elsewhere in the Netherlands. Three years later, this brotherhood received the pope’s approval.²⁹²⁹A. Duclos, De eerste eeuw van het Broederschap der Zeven Weedommen van Maria in Sint-Salvators te Brugge, Bruges 1922. Among the members’ tasks was to pray for peace in Europe as well as for the Burgundian noble house in the turbulent days following Mary of Burgundy’s death in 1482. Van Coudenberghe brought greater notoriety to this new devotion via a number of written texts. In this endeavour, he was greatly motivated by his financial supporters Charles V and Archduke Philip the Good,³⁰³⁰Jan van Coudenberghe, Miracula confraternitatis septem dolorum beatissime Virginis Marie, Antwerp (Hendrik Lettersnijder) 1496; Jan van Coudenberghe, Miracula confraternitatis septem dolorum sacratissime virginis Marie, Antwerp (Godfried Back) 1510; Jan van Coudenberghe, Miracula confraternitatis VII dolorum, Antwerp (Van Hoochstraten) 1519; J. van Coudenberghe, Ortus, progressus et impedimenta fraternitatis Beatissime Virginis Marie de Passione, que dicitur de Septem Doloribus, Antwerp (Michaël Hillenius) 1519. Other sources concerning this devotion are: Petrus de Manso, Devote gedenckenisse van de VII Weeden oft droefheyden onser liever Vrouwen, Antwerp (Gerard Leeu) 1492; Quodlibetica decisio perpulchra et devota de septem doloribus christifere virginis Marie ac communi et saluberrima confraternitate desuper instituta, Antwerp (Dierik Martens) 1494/95; Iacobus Stratius, Onse L. Vrouwe der Seven Weeen: Met mirakelen, getyden, ende misse der selver: insgelycks den Oorspronck, ende voortganck der Broederschap, Antwerp (Guillam Leestens) 1622. See also S. Speakman Sutch and A.L. van Bruaene, ‘The Seven Sorrows of the Virgin Mary: Devotional Communication and Politics in the Burgundian-Habsburg Low Countries, c. 1490-1520’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 60 (2010), pp. 252-78. with the latter having made considerable donations to the Bruges brotherhood.³¹³¹M.P.J. Martens and P. Huvenne, Brugge en de Renaissance: Van Memling tot Pourbus, vol. 2, Notities, exh. cat. Bruges (Memlingmuseum/Sint-Janshospitaal) 1998, p. 68. Yet it was above all the confraternity’s seat in Brussels, founded in 1499 in the local Sint-Gorikskerk, that held extraordinary importance for the Burgundian-Habsburg court. In addition to Philip the Good, Maximilian of Austria and Margaret of Austria, its formal members included many prominent individuals of the court and other high nobles.³²³²See also S. Speakman Sutch and A.L. van Bruaene, ‘The Seven Sorrows of the Virgin Mary: Devotional Communication and Politics in the Burgundian-Habsburg Low Countries, c. 1490-1520’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 60 (2010), pp. 252-78, esp. p. 275. In addition, the confraternity’s chapel was recognized by the court as a princely chapel. As well through the founding of various places of pilgrimage, the devotion of the Virgin’s Sorrows rapidly gained a solid footing in the Low Countries. After Reimerswaale, Bruges and Abbenbroek followed Delft, Geertruidenberg and other smaller localities.³³³³For an overview of pilgrimage sites in the Netherlands, consult the website of the Meertens Institute/KNAW (search query ‘Zeven smarten van Maria’). See also G. Verhoeven, _Devotie en negotie: Delft als bedevaartplaats in de late Middeleeuwen, Amsterdam 1992. It is in the context of this newly established form of Marian devotion – still in its early stages around the year 1500 – that the Rijksmuseum Mater Dolorosa must be examined.

The Amsterdam bust can be viewed as a sculptural version of a painted Flemish ‘primitive’. This is evident, for example, in its striking similarity to the mourning Virgin in a diptych from the circle of Simon Marmion (c. 1420/25-1489, fig. a).³⁴³⁴Bruges, Groeningemuseum, inv. no. GRO0201.I, see also A. Radcliffe, M. Baker and M. Maek-Gérard, The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection: Renaissance and Later Sculpture: With Works of Art in Bronze, coll. cat. Madrid 1992, p. 423. In utter contrast to Spanish dolorosas, where the emphasis lies on the external display of emotion, here the expression of sorrow in the face is repressed, with the mouth slightly ajar. Also identical is the form of the veil and wimple. Contrary to most painted versions of the Virgin in mourning, the sculptor of the Rijksmuseum Mater Dolorosa chose to eliminate the hands and arms in favour of a bust. As Molinier proffered in 1906, there is little doubt it was originally accompanied by its pendant, a bust of Christ, in accordance with the iconographic tradition of the Virgin and the Man of Sorrows.

Aforementioned similarities to the fifteenth-century pictorial Mater Dolorosa tradition of the Southern Netherlands firmly place the present bust in this region. Prior to the 1500s, however, late medieval sculpture in the Low Countries bears no trace of this iconographic type. Formal similarities abound, however, in the tradition of Italian sculpture. South of the Alps, but especially in Florence, the static gothic bust type typically reserved for reliquaries was eventually replaced by a more lively and realistic variant in the fifteenth century, as well applied to portraits. The same variant ultimately led to the all’antica bust a century later.³⁵³⁵I. Lavin, ‘On the Sources and Meaning of the Renaissance Portrait Bust’, The Art Quarterly 33 (1970), pp. 207-26, esp. pp. 207-09; I. Lavin, ‘On the Sources and Meaning of the Renaissance Portrait Bust’, in S. Blake McHam (ed.), Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, Cambridge (Mass.) 1998, pp. 60-78; T. Martin, Alessandro Vittoria and the Portrait Bust in Renaissance Venice: Remodelling Antiquity, Oxford 1998, p. 5; J.L. Burk, ‘Conrat Meit: Bildhauer der Renaissance’, in R. Eikelmann (ed.), Conrat Meit: Bildhauer der Renaissance, exh. cat. Munich (Bayerisches Nationalmuseum) 2006-07, pp. 15-67, esp. pp. 29, 30. Early examples of this development can be observed in Donatello’s oeuvre, including his bronze reliquary bust of St Rossore (c. 1425) and his bronze bust of a youth.³⁶³⁶H.W. Janson, The Sculpture of Donatello, Princeton 1979 (original 1963), pp. 56-59 (and pl. 25), pp. 141-43 (and pl. 66). See also K. Christiansen et al., The Renaissance Portrait: From Donatello to Bellini, exh. cat. New York (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 2011, no. 1. Prior to 1500, such modern, lifelike portraits were as yet uncommon north of the Alps, though local sculptors – for example, those working in the circles of the sculptor Nikolaus Gerhaert van Leyden (c. 1430-1473) and his German followers – were already experimenting with varied poses of half-length saints, prophets, sibyls, and other figures of this sort as early as the second half of the fifteenth century.³⁷³⁷S. Roller et al., Niclaus Gerhaert: Der Bildhauer des Mittelalters, exh. cat. Frankfurt am Main (Liebieghaus) 2011, nos. 8, 9, 33, 38 and 41; R. Eikelmann (ed.), Conrat Meit: Bildhauer der Renaissance, exh. cat. Munich (Bayerisches Nationalmuseum) 2006, no. 60. After being introduced at the Saxon court by Adriano Fiorentino in 1498, the Florentine portrait type made its first appearance in the Netherlands in the early decades of the sixteenth century.³⁸³⁸K. Christiansen et al., The Renaissance Portrait: From Donatello to Bellini, exh. cat. New York (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 2011, no. 108; R. Eikelmann (ed.), Conrat Meit: Bildhauer der Renaissance, exh. cat. Munich (Bayerisches Nationalmuseum) 2006-07, no. 62. The earliest known examples arose at Mechelen in the innovative artistic sphere fostered by Margaret of Austria, the governess of the Low Countries, especially in the oeuvres of the sculptors Conrat Meit (1485-1550/51) and an otherwise unknown figure named Claude de Chartres.³⁹³⁹D. Eichberger, Leben mit Kunst, Wirken durch Kunst: Sammelwesen und Hofkunst unter Margarete von Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande, Turnhout 2002, pp. 317-19; J.L. Burk, ‘Conrat Meit: Bildhauer der Renaissance’, in R. Eikelmann (ed.), Conrat Meit: Bildhauer der Renaissance, exh. cat. Munich (Bayerisches Nationalmuseum) 2006-07, pp. 15-67, esp. pp. 29-33 and nos. 8-10, 12, 62, 69. For Claude de Chartres, a sculptor employed by Philip of Burgundy at Wijk bij Duurstede Castle in 1518, see J. Sterk, Philips van Bourgondië (1465-1524): Bisschop van Utrecht als protagonist van de Renaissance: Zijn leven en mecenaat, Zutphen 1980, pp. 45, 234, 297ff. (notes 15-17), and R. Eikelmann (ed.), Conrat Meit: Bildhauer der Renaissance, exh. cat. Munich (Bayerisches Nationalmuseum) 2006-07, no. 69. The Rijksmuseum Mater Dolorosa exemplifies this new ‘Florentine’ portrait type.

Also in terms of technique, the Mater Dolorosa is an entirely isolated case in the context of Netherlandish sculpture. In his discussion of this work, Maek-Gérard suggested a connection to Netherlandish white pipeclay sculpture produced in Utrecht and other centres in the Low Countries in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century. He also noted that no pipeclay figurines of a quality and scale comparable to that of the Mater Dolorosa have survived.⁴⁰⁴⁰A. Radcliffe, M. Baker and M. Maek-Gérard, The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection: Renaissance and Later Sculpture: With Works of Art in Bronze, coll. cat. Madrid 1992, p. 422. This is by no means surprising when considering that the technique involved in the production of pipeclay figures was of an entirely different order. These were chiefly small to very small, relatively low-cost objects of private devotion serially produced in moulds and intended for ‘mass consumption’.⁴¹⁴¹P.L.M. van Vlijmen, ‘Pijpaarden plastiek, vervaardiging en verspreiding’, in Vroomheid per dozijn, exh. cat. Utrecht (Museum Catharijneconvent) 1982, pp. 12-16; M.L. Caron, ‘Pijpaarden beeldjes, individuele devotie en massacultuur’, in ibid., pp. 17-21. Even the larger, less common pieces – often reliefs to be incorporated in altarpieces – were formed in moulds. Accordingly, they lack the refinement of unique works of sculpture freely modelled in terracotta.⁴²⁴²J. Leeuwenberg, ‘Die Ausstrahlung Utrechter Tonplastik’, in Studien zur Geschichte der europäischen Plastik: Festschrift Theodor Müller, Munich 1965, pp. 151-66; C. Perier-d’Ieteren and A. Born (eds.), Retables en terre cuite des Pays-Bays (XVe-XVIe siècles): Étude stylistique et technologique, Brussels 1992. Fragments of a small portrait bust fired in grey pipeclay, possibly depicting Margaret of Austria, were unearthed during an excavation at Breda (Gemeentelijke Archeologische Dienst, Breda). This work was also formed in a mould. These larger pieces were chiefly made for export to various destinations across Europe, with examples still found today in Segovia, Regensburg, Normandy and Denmark. Furthermore, pipeclay is a fine and dissoluble material that scarcely lends itself to applications on a grander scale.⁴³⁴³M. Hirsch, Die spätgotische Tonplastik in Altbayern und den angrenzenden Regionen, Petersberg 2010, p. 25. Additionally. the quality of clay-modelled sculptural works produced in other centres north of the Alps remains far inferior to that of the Mater Dolorosa .⁴⁴⁴⁴For Germany, see M. Hermann, Augsburger Bilderbäcker: Tonfigürchen des späten Mittelalters und der Renaissance, Augsburg 1995; G.V. Grimm et al, Kleine Meisterwerke des Bilddrucks: Ungeliebte Kinder der Kunstgeschichte, Büchenbach 2011. M. Hirsch, Die spätgotische Tonplastik in Altbayern und den angrenzenden Regionen, Petersberg 2010. Maek-Gérard therefore rightly concluded: ‘The Mourning Virgin seems to be a unique relic of the large-format clay sculpture of Flanders in the last quarter of the fifteenth century’.⁴⁵⁴⁵A. Radcliffe, M. Baker and M. Maek-Gérard, The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection: Renaissance and Later Sculpture: With Works of Art in Bronze, coll. cat. Madrid 1992, p. 422.

The bust’s unique status can virtually only be interpreted in terms of some kind of direct influence from Italy, where, especially in Florence and Lombardy, terracotta sculpture evolved very quickly in the fifteenth century. All of the major Florentine sculptors of the quattrocento were working in clay, as a medium for modelling both preliminary studies as well as works of autonomous sculpture. Along with Ghiberti’s largely incidental use of the medium – as was also the case with his immediate successors including Donatello, Michelozzo and Verrocchio – a degree of specialization also emerged: Michele da Firenze (documented 1403-57), the Della Robbias with their glazed, ceramic works of sculpture,⁴⁶⁴⁶Preserved in the Sint-Jacobskerk in Bruges – since c. 1475 – is a tondo by Luca della Robbia depicting the Virgin and the Christ Child, presented as a gift by Tommaso Portinari, see M.P.J. Martens and P. Huvenne, Brugge en de Renaissance: Van Memling tot Pourbus, vol. 1, Catalogus, exh. cat. Bruges (Memlingmuseum/Sint-Janshospitaal) 1998, no. 226. and a number of anonymous masters, such as the Master of the Unruly Children and the Master of the David and St John Statuettes, focused almost exclusively on the manufacture of religious terracotta sculpture.⁴⁷⁴⁷M. Hirsch, Die spätgotische Tonplastik in Altbayern und den angrenzenden Regionen, Petersberg 2010, pp. 21-23. B. Boucher, ‘Italian Renaissance Terracotta: Artistic Revival or Technological Innovation?’, in B. Boucher (ed.), Earth and Fire: Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, exh. cat. Houston (Museum of Fine Arts Houston)/London (Victoria and Albert Museum) 2001-02, pp. 1-31. G. Bonsanti and F. Piccinini, Emozioni in terracotta: Guido Mazzoni, Antonio Begarelli, sculture del Rinascimento Emiliano, exh. cat. Modena (Foro Boario) 2009. Others, including Benedetto da Maiano, Antonio de Benintendi and Pietro Torrigiani, proceeded to develop their own genres: portrait busts and busts of saints in polychromed or non-polychromed terracotta.⁴⁸⁴⁸B. Boucher (ed.), Earth and Fire: Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, exh. cat. Houston (Museum of Fine Arts Houston)/London (Victoria and Albert Museum) 2001-02, nos. 18, 22, 28. B. Boucher, A. Broderick and N. Wood, ‘A Terracotta Bust of Cardinal Giovanni de’Medici’, in Antologia di belle arti, n.s. 52-55 (1996), pp. 32-39. Especially Verrocchio’s bust of Christ would go on to become one of the most imitated iconographic types in Tuscany during the final decades of the fifteenth century, due to the penetrating realism of painted terracotta and as exemplified by the approximately one hundred copies still surviving to the present day.⁴⁹⁴⁹A. Butterfield, The Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, New Haven/London 1997, p. 77 and no. 9. In more north-lying regions such as Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna, where suitable stone was unobtainable, a regional ‘terracotta school’ arose, with Niccolò dell’Arca (c. 1435-1494), Guido Mazzoni (c. 1450-1518) and Antonio Begarelli (1499-1565) emerging as key players.⁵⁰⁵⁰B. Boucher (ed.), Earth and Fire: Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, exh. cat. Houston (Museum of Fine Arts Houston)/London (Victoria and Albert Museum) 2001-02, no. 20.

In terms of sculptural technique, the Rijksmuseum Mater Dolorosa is born of this Italian tradition. The sculpture is modelled entirely in the round in a beige-coloured clay, with an arched, portal-shaped opening on the reverse. The sculpture’s lower edge has been trimmed at an angle around its perimeter – a characteristic found only on several Florentine portrait busts, including Mino da Fiesole’s busts of Piero di Cosimo de’ Medici and Niccolò di Leonardo Strozzi, both from 1454, and Benedetto da Maiano’s portrait of Filippo Strozzi from 1475 and his bust of John the Baptist (c. 1480).⁵¹⁵¹K. Christiansen et al., The Renaissance Portrait: From Donatello to Bellini, exh. cat. New York (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 2011, nos. 23, 47, 122. Other examples include the Florentine bust depictions of Sant’Antonio Pierozzi (Santa Maria Novella, Florence) and Machiavelli by anonymous sculptors, see G. Gentilini, ‘Il beato sorore di Santa Maria della Scala’, Antologia di belle arti, n.s. 52-55 (1996), pp. 17-31, esp. figs. 11, 13. P.L. Rubin and A. Wright, Renaissance Florence: The Art of the 1470s, exh. cat. London (The National Gallery) 1999, p. 113, fig. 88.

Because the bust’s format suggests ties to developments in Florentine sculpture of the Quattrocento, one may reasonably conclude the Mater Dolorosa is the work of a sculptor schooled in Italy but whose inspiration was directly drawn from Flemish painting of circa 1500. It could have been made in Italy, where Flemish paintings were present in abundance.⁵²⁵²P. Nuttall, _From Flanders to Florence: The Impact of Netherlandish Painting, 1400-1500), Yale 2004. A sculptor of Italian origin seems improbable, however, as this would imply a marked deviation from his own pictorial tradition. More likely is that the bust’s maker was an Italian sculptor, trained in the Tuscan tradition, active in the Netherlands, and employed by a local patron with a Flemish panel painting as his model.

One individual who fits this artist’s profile is Pietro Torrigiani (1472-1528), a Florentine sculptor who spent some time, perhaps even a period of several years, working for Margaret of Austria at Mechelen prior to entering the service of the English king Henry VII in 1511. Torrigiani was born in Signa, a village on the outskirts of Florence, known today and at the time for the production of terracotta.⁵³⁵³For Torrigiani’s biography, see A.P. Darr, Pietro Torrigiano and his Sculpture for the Henry VII Chapel, Westminster Abbey, Ann Arbor 2004, pp. 41-66; A.P. Darr, ‘New Documents for Pietro Torrigiani and other Early Cinquecento Florentine Sculptors Active in Italy and England’, in M. Cämmerer (ed.), Kunst des Cinquecento in der Toskana, Florence 1992, pp. 108-38, esp. p. 108. The sculptor’s renown in Florence experienced a major setback when, in the midst of a scuffle, he broke Michelangelo’s nose, inevitably forcing him to flee the city around 1490-92.⁵⁴⁵⁴See for instance P. Barolsky, Michelangelo’s Nose, a Myth and its Maker, Pennsylvania/London 1990, esp. pp. 1-10. A figure virtually forgotten by art historians, this incident and Torrigiani’s numerous wanderings have shaped his fortuna critica to the present day. After fleeing Florence, he worked in Bologna (in 1492) – having been commissioned to make a terracotta portrait bust of the physician Stefano della Torre – and in Rome, where he collaborated with Pinturicchio on the stucco decorations on the Torre Borgia for Pope Alexander VI. Two other busts in painted marble, depicting Santa Fina and San Gregorio (Ospedale, San Gimignano), have also been linked to this phase in Torrigiani’s career.⁵⁵⁵⁵A.P. Darr, ‘New Documents for Pietro Torrigiani and other Early Cinquecento Florentine Sculptors Active in Italy and England’, in M. Cämmerer (ed.), Kunst des Cinquecento in der Toskana, Florence 1992, pp. 108-38, esp. p. 109 and figs. 1a, b. In 1498, Torrigiani drew up his will, possibly based on his decision to enter the army: in the next five years, he served in the armies of Cesare Borgia, the condottiere Paolo Vitelli and Piero de’Medici as a mercenary soldier. In 1504, his presence is documented in Avignon and Florence, and in 1505 or 1506, again in Rome.⁵⁶⁵⁶A.P. Darr, ‘New Documents for Pietro Torrigiani and other Early Cinquecento Florentine Sculptors Active in Italy and England’, in M. Cämmerer (ed.), Kunst des Cinquecento in der Toskana, Florence 1992, pp. 108-38, esp. p. 112. Torrigiani was in the Low Countries in April 1510, but had moved on to London only one year later, where he was employed at the English royal court, specifically to work on the first renaissance monumental tomb in Great Britain, built for King Henry VII.⁵⁷⁵⁷A.P. Darr, Pietro Torrigiano and his Sculpture for the Henry VII Chapel, Westminster Abbey, Ann Arbor 2004. In addition, he modelled the king’s portrait and perhaps those of several other members of the court.⁵⁸⁵⁸C. Galvin and P. Lindley, ‘Pietro Torrigiano’s Portrait Bust of King Henry VII’, The Burlington Magazine 130 (1988), pp. 892-902, figs. 3-5; H.J. Dow, ‘Two Italian Portrait-Busts of Henry VIII’, The Art Bulletin 42 (1960), no. 4, pp. 291-94. Torrigiani spent the latter years of his life in Seville, where he died in prison in 1528.

Unfortunately, no documentation exists regarding the precise duration of Torrigiani’s employment under Margaret.⁵⁹⁵⁹A.P. Darr, Pietro Torrigiano and his Sculpture for the Henry VII Chapel, Westminster Abbey, Ann Arbor 2004, p. 53; C. Cochin, ‘Pietro Torrigiano en Flandre, un lien artistique entre l’Italie, la Flandre et l’Angleterre’, La Revue de l’art ancien et modern 36 (1919), pp. 179-82; F. Grossmann, ‘Holbein, Torrigiano and some portraits of Dean Colet’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13 (1950), pp. 202-36, esp. pp. 208-09; C. Galvin and P. Lindley, ‘Pietro Torrigiano’s Portrait Bust of King Henry VII’, The Burlington Magazine 130 (1988), pp. 892-902, esp. p. 900. On 26 April 1510, her comptroller Diego Fores was ordered to pay Maistre Pierre Tourrissan tailleur et composeur de figures et ymaiges the sum of 30 Philips guilders, in what appears to be the sculptor’s final remuneration just prior to his departure for London. The payment concerns a variety of activities: the making of a freestanding statue of Hercules; the repair of the broken neck on a terracotta bust of Mary Rose Tudor, King Henry VII’s daughter; and advice rendered concerning the mausoleum at Brou, which Margaret had begun planning shortly after the death of her husband, Philibert, Duke of Savoy, in 1504, to be built for herself, her husband and her mother-in-law.⁶⁰⁶⁰For the complete text of this document, see C. Cochin, ‘Pietro Torrigiano en Flandre, un lien artistique entre l’Italie, la Flandre et l’Angleterre’, La Revue de l’art ancien et modern 36 (1919), pp. 179-82, esp. p. 182: …pour communiquer avec nous (=Margaret) d’aucunes choses mesmes de certaines sepultures que nous avons intencion de faire dresser pour nous et feu nostre tres chier mary le duc de Savoye, que Dieu absoille .…. Darr erroneously concluded from this text that Torrigiani also advised on the pre-existing monumental tomb of Mary of Burgundy in Bruges, see A.P. Darr, Pietro Torrigiano and his Sculpture for the Henry VII Chapel, Westminster Abbey, Ann Arbor 2004, p. 53. A.P. Darr, ‘New Documents for Pietro Torrigiani and other Early Cinquecento Florentine Sculptors Active in Italy and England’, in M. Cämmerer (ed.), Kunst des Cinquecento in der Toskana, Florence 1992, pp. 108-38, esp. p. 121. Torrigiani’s terracotta bust of Mary Tudor, together with an unidentified male pendant, was recently rediscovered in Harvard (Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum), as inv. nos. 1981.188 and 1981.189, see F. Pereda and T. Sigel, ‘Authorship Rediscovered: New Evidence about Harvard’s Pair of Renaissance Terracotta Busts’, online Art Talk (Harvard Museums) 23 February 2021. Also see E. Tormo, ‘Obras conocidas y desconocidas de Torrigiano’, Boletín de la Sociedad Española de Excursiones 1918, pp. 100-03.

These last-cited plans were probably the reason for Torrigiani’s stay in the Netherlands.⁶¹⁶¹A.P. Darr, Pietro Torrigiano and his Sculpture for the Henry VII Chapel, Westminster Abbey, Ann Arbor 2004, p. 320. Work on the mausoleum was first undertaken in March 1505 with the renovation of the old monastery church at Brou. ⁶²⁶²A.R. Berens, Jean Perreals Beitrag zur fürstlichen Memoria in Brou: Stiftung und Grablege der Margaretha von Österreich, Luxemburg-Norderstedt 2009. Between 1505 and 1510, Margaret sought after sculptors capable of designing and executing the mausoleum’s monumental tombs. She initially hired the French court sculptor Michel Colombe (1511), followed by the Flemings Lodewijk van Boghem (1512) and Jan van Roome (1513-14), and finally the German sculptor Conrat Meit (1526). Furthermore, Margaret’s acquisition of the alabaster quarry at Saint-Lothain in 1510 indicates that it was not until this time that the actual execution of the tombs’ sculpture was first undertaken.⁶³⁶³A.R. Berens, Jean Perreals Beitrag zur fürstlichen Memoria in Brou: Stiftung und Grablege der Margaretha von Österreich, Luxemburg-Norderstedt 2009, pp. 66-73. Pietro Torrigiani’s presence in Flanders in 1510 (and probably earlier) coincides perfectly with the governess’s efforts to find a sculptor suitable for the work to be done at Brou. His qualities as a portraitist would certainly have played a role in Margaret’s choice: after all, Torrigiani possessed the skill to produce both modern portraits carved in the round as well as models for the planned tomb effigies. Quite possibly, it was also at this time that he made the now lost portrait bust of Jean Carondelet (1469-1545), mentioned in Philip of Burgundy’s inventory in 1529.⁶⁴⁶⁴J. Sterk, Philips van Bourgondië (1465-1524): Bisschop van Utrecht als protagonist van de Renaissance: Zijn leven en mecenaat, Zutphen 1980, p. 234 (fol. 14 of the inventory): Een gebacken hoeft nae de figuer van Carondolet ende is gesonden mijnen heere van Parlermen tot zijnder instantie. Carondelet became a member of the conseil privé in Mechelen in 1508. He is also known to have commissioned a portrait by Jan Gossaert (1478-1532) around this time.⁶⁵⁶⁵M.W. Ainsworth (ed.), Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasure: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance: The Complete Works, New York/New Haven/London 2010, no. 39.

Also important in this context is the matter of when and where Torrigiani made the terracotta portrait of Mary Rose Tudor, which he was later asked to repair, and whether this piece was ‘after life’.⁶⁶⁶⁶The notion that Torrigiani was responsible for this work has gained general acceptance in the academic literature since F. Grossmann, ‘Holbein, Torrigiano and some portraits of Dean Colet’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13 (1950), pp. 202-36, p. 209 (note 1). It was still located in Margaret’s library at Mechelen in 1523-24, see D. Eichberger, Leben mit Kunst, Wirken durch Kunst: Sammelwesen und Hofkunst unter Margarete von Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande, Turnhout 2002, p. 131. In Margaret’s inventory, the work is described as follows: Item la representation de la soeur du roy d’Angleterre faicte de terre cuyte; see H. Zimerman and J. Fiedler, ‘Urkunden und Regesten aus dem k.u.k. Reichs-Finanz-Archiv’, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen 3 (1885) 2, p. cxviii. Up to now, various authors have surmised that he modelled this portrait in London during a previous (undocumented) stay at the English royal court.⁶⁷⁶⁷F. Grossmann, ‘Holbein, Torrigiano and some portraits of Dean Colet’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13 (1950), pp. 202-36, esp. p. 209; J. Pope-Hennessy, Catalogue of Italian Sculpture in the Victoria and Albert Museum, vol. 2, coll. cat. London 1964, p. 401; A.P. Darr, Pietro Torrigiano and his Sculpture for the Henry VII Chapel, Westminster Abbey, Ann Arbor 2004, p. 50; A.P. Darr, ‘New Documents for Pietro Torrigiani and other Early Cinquecento Florentine Sculptors Active in Italy and England’, in M. Cämmerer (ed.), Kunst des Cinquecento in der Toskana, Florence 1992, pp. 108-38, esp. p. 121. A more plausible scenario, however, is that Torrigiani produced this bust while in the Netherlands, relying on a painted portrait of Mary Tudor as his model.⁶⁸⁶⁸Some authors have maintained that the English princess stayed at Margaret’s court in Mechelen in connection with her engagement in December 1508. No such stay, however, is documented. See D. Eichberger, Leben mit Kunst, Wirken durch Kunst: Sammelwesen und Hofkunst unter Margarete von Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande, Turnhout 2002, pp. 289-90 and 317; A.P. Darr, Pietro Torrigiano and his Sculpture for the Henry VII Chapel, Westminster Abbey, Ann Arbor 2004, pp. 52, 53, 154. See also M. Croom Brown, Mary Tudor: Queen of France, London 1911, pp. 1-47, and M. Perry, Sisters to the King: The Tumultuous Lives of Henry VIII’s Sisters Margaret of Scotland and Mary of France, London 1998, pp. 41-43 and 80-87, who dismiss the notion that any such visit occurred. The engagement took place in London (December 1508), with the wedding scheduled for May 1513, to be held as well in London. Mary’s marriage to the French king Louis XII, however, annulled these plans. Another indirect indication of his presence in the Low Countries prior to 1510 is the fact that in April 1504 he was commissioned to produce a crucifix while in Avignon for Francesco and Giovanni Baroncelli, scions of a Florentine banking family also active in Bruges.⁶⁹⁶⁹A.P. Darr, ‘New Documents for Pietro Torrigiani and other Early Cinquecento Florentine Sculptors Active in Italy and England’, in M. Cämmerer (ed.), Kunst des Cinquecento in der Toskana, Florence 1992, pp. 108-38, esp. p. 110. Both were related to Pierantonio di Guasparre Bandini-Baroncelli, who represented the Pazzi bank in Bruges, while the Bruges representative of the Medici bank, Tommaso Portinari, was married to Maria Baroncelli, in turn a relative of Pierantonio.⁷⁰⁷⁰M. Koster, ‘Reconsidering St. Catherine of Bologna with three donors by the Baroncelli Master of Bruges’, Simiolus 26 (1998), nos. 1/2, pp. 4-17, esp. p. 10, note 36. This family network, operating in Florence, Avignon and Bruges, may have enabled Torrigiani to make his way to Flanders, in which case he is likely to have arrived no earlier than 1505.⁷¹⁷¹Torrigiani was in Florence in August 1504 and in Rome in January 1505, see A.P. Darr, ‘New Documents for Pietro Torrigiani and other Early Cinquecento Florentine Sculptors Active in Italy and England’, in M. Cämmerer (ed.), Kunst des Cinquecento in der Toskana, Florence 1992, pp. 108-38, esp. p. 112. The idea that Torrigiani’s career evolved around a network of Florentine bankers and merchants is further supported by the succession of cities in which he was active: Florence, Rome, Avignon, Bruges, London and Seville. In all of these places – among the most important financial centres of Europe in the fifteenth century – Florentine bankers and merchants were solidly established.⁷²⁷²R. de Roover, The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank 1397-1494, Cambridge (Mass.) 1963, passim.

Evident stylistic and technical similarities can be discerned when comparing the Mater Dolorosa to Torrigiani’s documented works, thus supporting the Amsterdam bust’s addition to the sculptor’s oeuvre. The Virgin’s drapery folds are exceptionally distinctive, with Mary’s blue mantle appearing as if made of a heavy but supple fabric. The mantle descends in broad, decorative folds and long, waving lines framing the face, ending delicately in a slightly arched horizontal line at the breast, accentuated by an elegant, comma-shaped loop on the right. Around this, sweeping loops and V-forms enshroud the shoulders and upper arms. In this flowing, calligraphic play of line, the bust differs markedly from the generally more angular, ‘wrinkly’ pattern of its painted Flemish counterparts. Parallels emerge only when turning to Italian quattrocento sculpture and works such as Verrocchio’s bronze Christ and St Thomas.⁷³⁷³A. Butterfield, The Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, New Haven/London 1997, figs. 90-95. The same distinct signature can also be discerned in Torrigiani’s work, which clearly displays Verrocchio’s influence.⁷⁴⁷⁴A.P. Darr, ‘Verrocchio’s Legacy: Observations Regarding his Influence on Pietro Torrigiani and other Florentine sculptors’, in S. Bule, A.P. Darr and F. Superbi Gioffredi, Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, Florence 1992, pp. 125-39. Thick folds with the same comma-shaped loops, similar to those seen on the Rijksmuseum bust, can also be observed on the arms of his bust of a clergyman (John Fisher?) in New York (The Metropolitan Museum of Art), and to a lesser degree on the portrait of King Henry VII in London (Victoria and Albert Museum).⁷⁵⁷⁵R. Marks and P. Williamson, Gothic: Art for England 1400-1547, exh. cat. London (Victoria and Albert Museum) 2003, no. 8, 7 and pl. 2. See also cat. Florence, Palazzo Strozzi, Money and Beauty: Bankers, Botticelli and the Bonfire of the Vanities, Florence 2011, no. 8.6 (a portrait bust of Lorenzo de Medici attributed to Torrigiani). Because these portraits – just as the majority of Florentine portrait busts of the quattrocento – were meant to be displayed as freestanding sculptures, the reverse sides are also closed and finished. This is not the case with the bust of the Virgin, which, with an opening on its reverse, was apparently intended for display against a wall, as part of an altarpiece or in a wall niche. The drapery folds of Torrigiani’s two gilt-bronze tomb effigies on the monumental tomb of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York (Westminster Abbey, London) bear the same characteristics: thick loops at the foot-end, with long, decorative folds adorning the robes of the king and his consort.⁷⁶⁷⁶M. Whinney, Sculpture in Britain 1530 to 1830, London 1988, fig. 4.

Details in the finishing of Mary’s face – such as the deeply incised eyelids: so deep that in the corner of the left eye a small incision can be seen through the wall of the sculpture – also occur in three of Torrigiani’s male portraits in London and New York, the recently rediscovered bust of Mary Tudor in Harvard,⁷⁷⁷⁷Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum, https://hvrd.art/o/227929" target="_blank">inv. no. 1981.189, see F. Pereda and T. Sigel, ‘Authorship Rediscovered: New Evidence about Harvard’s Pair of Renaissance Terracotta Busts’, online Art Talk (Harvard Museums) 23 February 2021. and the bust of Christ in the Santa Trinità in Florence, also attributed to Torrigiani.⁷⁸⁷⁸B. Boucher (ed.), Earth and Fire: Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, exh. cat. Houston (Museum of Fine Arts Houston)/London (Victoria and Albert Museum) 2001-02, no. 22. Here too, we observe the mouth slightly opened, just enough for the teeth to be seen. The Mater Dolorosa also shares one striking technical detail with the bust of Henry VII, specifically, two seams or incised lines along the inside of the shoulders.

Thematically, the Mater Dolorosa bust complies exceedingly well with the Marian devotion practiced at Margaret’s court, and specifically, the veneration of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin.⁷⁹⁷⁹D. Eichberger, Leben mit Kunst, Wirken durch Kunst: Sammelwesen und Hofkunst unter Margarete von Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande, Turnhout 2002, pp. 206-28. The governess possessed many images of the Virgin in various forms. Her bond with some of these works was also highly personal: on one occasion, she even referred to an Andachtsbild painted by Michael Sittow as ma mignonne. ⁸⁰⁸⁰D. Eichberger, Leben mit Kunst, Wirken durch Kunst: Sammelwesen und Hofkunst unter Margarete von Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande, Turnhout 2002, p. 216. Margaret also commissioned numerous artworks on the theme of the Virgin that were destined for places outside the confines of her court at Mechelen. Among these are the large stone altar of the Seven Joys of the Virgin at Brou, and a wooden Nostre Dame de pitié (Pietà) by Conrat Meit, made for the convent of the Order of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which she founded at Bruges in 1517. The monastery church was dedicated to the Seven Sorrows of Mary, a devotional theme particularly relevant to Margaret’s status as a widow.⁸¹⁸¹D. Eichberger, Leben mit Kunst, Wirken durch Kunst: Sammelwesen und Hofkunst unter Margarete von Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande, Turnhout 2002, pp. 224-28. As mentioned above, Jan van Coudenberghe, the court secretary of the Habsburgs in the Netherlands, expended great effort in promoting this unique Marian devotion in the Low Countries. That the Mater Dolorosa had become a religious role model for the governess is explicitly conveyed in a miniature that shows Margaret mourning the loss of her recently deceased husband, Philibert. Here she appears in a pose directly reminiscent of the Virgin in mourning: kneeling in prayer with the hands folded before her breast.⁸²⁸²D. Eichberger, Leben mit Kunst, Wirken durch Kunst: Sammelwesen und Hofkunst unter Margarete von Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande, Turnhout 2002, fig. 83. The fact that there are no good Northern examples for comparison with this bust of Mary – in terms of style, quality and technique – underscores the great rarity of this piece and suggests it is certain to have been a special work, possibly commissioned by or for the Habsburg court.⁸³⁸³Unfortunately, this work is nowhere mentioned among the commissions made by the Brussels Confraternity of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin, see E. 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.

The specific, naturalistic characteristics of the Mater Dolorosa oblige us to consider the Rijksmuseum bust in the context of the portrait historié. Various inventories confirm such portraits – at least in painted format – were known in Margaret’s circles. Philip of Burgundy, the bishop of Utrecht, possessed two such portraits histories: a painted portrait of Barber of Montfoort as the Virgin Mary, and a Mary Magdalene modelled after a vrouwken van Mechelen (maiden from Mechelen). The first work was presented as a gift to Margaret of Austria, who furnished it with a protective shutter.⁸⁴⁸⁴J. Sterk, Philips van Bourgondië (1465-1524): Bisschop van Utrecht als protagonist van de Renaissance: Zijn leven en mecenaat, Zutphen 1980, p. 226 (fol. 9): Een taeffereel van een Marybeelt nae Hoerns aensicht. This first painting is a portrait of Barber van Montfoort, the daughter of Jan and Charlotte van Montfoort who married Maximillian van Hoirnes, Lord of Gaasbeek, in 1504. An annotation in the margin states it was sent to Margaret of Austria. It is also listed in Margaret’s estate of 1524/30, described as Ung tableau de paincture de Nostre-Dame, tiré après le vif d’une mademaiselle, qu’estoit a madame d’Hocstrate, nommée Vrne, habillée d’une robe bleuve, a ung cordon de soie à son col, tenant son enfant nuz; le champ noir et ung feullet pour couvrir aux armes de Bourgogne et de Savoie; and p. 227 (fol. 9): een taeffereel van Sinte Marien Magdalena nae een ander vrouwken van Mechelen ende heeft Broeder Geryt nae hem genomen. ‘Brother Geryt’ was Gerrit Geldenhouwer, a member of the Order of the Holy Cross. See also R. Wishnevsky, Studien zum ‘portrait historié’ in den Niederlanden, Munich 1967, pp. 19-21 and 32-38.

Frits Scholten, 2024

E. Molinier, ‘Préface’ in sale collection Schevitch Paris (Galerie Georges Petit), 4-7 April 1906, pp. 11-12; A. Feulner, Sammlung Schloss Rohoncz., vol. 3, Plastik und Kunsthandwerk, Lugano-Castagnola 1941, p. 35 and no. 66; R.J. Heinemann, Sammlung Schloss Rohoncz, coll. cat. Lugano-Castagnola (Villa Favorita) 1958, p. 136 (no. K 66); R.J. Heinemann, Collection Château Rohoncz, coll. cat. Lugano-Castagnola (Villa Favorita) 1959, p. 103 (no. K 66); A.S. Berkes, Sammlung Thyssen-Bornemisza, Schloss Rohoncz, coll. cat. Lugano-Castagnola (Villa Favorita) 1966, p. 81 (K 66); I. Schlégl and S.S. Berkes, Guida pratica della Pinacoteca Thyssen-Bornemisza, coll. cat. Lugano-Castagnola (Villa Favorita) 1970, p. 21 (no. K 66, as standing on cabinet no. K 509); A. Radcliffe, M. Baker and M. Maek-Gérard, The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection: Renaissance and Later Sculpture: With Works of Art in Bronze, coll. cat. Madrid 1992, no. 83 (where the year of the Schevitch sale is erroneously stated as 1910 (versus 1906); F. Scholten, ‘Acquisitions: Medieval Sculpture from the Goldschmidt-Pol Collection and from Other Donors’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 59 (2011), pp. 414-35, esp. no. 4 and cover; F. Scholten (ed.), 1100-1600, coll. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 2015, no. 41; F. Scholten, ‘Torrigiani’s Mater Dolorosa in the Rijksmuseum’, in B. Cornelis et al. (eds.), Collecting for the Public: Works that Made a Difference: Essays for Peter Hecht, London 2016, pp. 202-09

F. Scholten, 2024, 'attributed to Pietro Torrigiani, The Virgin as Mater Dolorosa (Our Lady of Sorrows), Southern Netherlands, c. 1507 - 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.503628