Modelled and fired. The right upper arm ends abruptly half way and is flattened there. The reverse is developed only sketchily in parts. There are two openings on the back to facilitate attachment.

The lower right leg and part of the drapery at the legs are missing. In 1992 the piece fell in the display case through unknown causes and was damaged, the left leg broke off, as did the right shoulder (along the joint). Both have subsequently been repaired.

…; sale collection Dr C. Ekama, Haarlem, collection Mr S.H. de la Sablonière, Kampen et al., Amsterdam (Frederik Muller), 19-20 May 1891, p. 6, no. 28 (as ‘François Duquesnoy’), fl. 32.60, to the museum

Object number: BK-NM-9353

The museum purchased these four hovering putti at an Amsterdam sale in 1891 (for the other three, see BK-NM-9350, -9351 and -9352). The ensemble was then ascribed to François du Quesnoy (1597-1643): an attribution that was no doubt based on the affinity with the putto type popularized in the north by that sculptor.¹¹Sale collection Dr C. Ekama, Haarlem, collection S.H. de la Sablonière, Kampen, Amsterdam (Frederik Muller), 19-20 May 1891, p. 6, no. 28 (as ‘François Duquesnoy’). Although the heightened charm and extreme stylization of the present children indicate they came about in the eighteenth century, comparison with Du Quesnoy’s epitaph of Ferdinand van den Eynde in the Santa Maria dell’ Anima in Rome suggests that this too is a design for a funerary or memorial monument.²²For this monument, see P. Philippot, D. Coekelberghs, P. Loze and D. Vautier, L’Architecture religieuse et la sculpture baroques dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux et la principauté de Liège: 1600-1770, Sprimont 2003, p. 697 (fig. 2). The putti, like the cherubs on that epitaph, appear to be hovering and together holding aloft a piece of drapery: a common motif in funerary sculpture. A second possibility is that they held the drapery to form a canopy above some sort of structure. In that case, they might, for instance, have been part of a design for an altarpiece or pulpit.³³Cf. KIK-IRPA object nos. 20054591 and 20059816. Cherubs in similar poses can be seen on Michiel van der Voort’s richly decorated, so-called naturalistic pulpit of 1714 in Antwerp Cathedral, where they circle the soundboard, conceived in the form of a canopy.⁴⁴M.E. Tralbaut, De amors & putti, serafijnen & cherubijnen van Michiel van der Voort de Oude, Antwerp 1946, fig. 19. KIK-IRPA object no. 86017. In view of the poses and direction in which the present putti are looking, there will have been two at the top (BK-NM-9350; BK-NM-9352) and two somewhat lower down (BK-NM-9351; BK-NM-9353).

Haks thought he recognized the hand of Jan Baptist Xavery (1697-1742) in the terracottas and in 1973 Leeuwenberg catalogued the putti as such, dating them to the second quarter of the eighteenth century.⁵⁵J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, p. 380. Although there is some kinship with his type of putto (cf. BK-1983-21; BK-1965-21; BK-1951-25), Xavery’s children are generally more slender, more elegant and less expressive than these putti. Also, he left their eyes blank, whereas the eyes of three of the present putti have incised pupils. Xavery’s contemporary, Laurent Delvaux (1696-1778) would be a better candidate to have been their maker. The physiognomy and plumpness of the little bodies are very similar to his sculptures, as comparison with the naked boy Jesus in his terracotta study for Joseph with Christ Child confirms (BK-1951-25). Parallels can also be found in his oeuvre for the somewhat more muscular body of the seated putto.⁶⁶Cf. A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, nos. S109 and S110. The eyes of his putti (in both terracotta and marble versions) generally have pupils that have been identically fashioned, thus enhancing their often very animated facial expression.⁷⁷Compare, for example, the Christ Child of the Joseph piece from the former abbey church of Affligem which can now be found in Sint-Jakob-op-Koudenberg in Brussels. Unlike with the eyes in the final sculpture, Delvaux did not incise pronounced pupils in the Christ in the model for this version (Rijksmuseum, BK-1971-25). Lastly, there are good analogies in Delvaux’ oeuvre for the various hairstyles of the putti, from wavy to straight.

Many funerary monuments, altars and pulpits are known by Delvaux which contain hovering angels of this type.⁸⁸Cf. A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, nos. S4, S24, S 98, S277, S279, D3, D6, D8 and D12. They are still deeply rooted in the baroque tradition of Du Quesnoy, whose work he studied thoroughly when he was staying in Rome from 1728 to 1732.⁹⁹For instance, during his stay in Rome he made drawings of the Van den Eynde monument, see A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, no. D28, fig. 33. The hovering, climbing and scrambling cherubs in Antonio Raggi’s stucco decoration of the dome in Sant’Andrea al Quirinale in Rome which Delvaux carefully copied into his sketchbook might well have formed an example for him.¹⁰¹⁰Delvaux drew these putti during his stay in Rome, see A. Jacobs, Laurent Delvaux (Gand, 1696-Nivelles, 1778), Paris 1999, no. D25 and fig. 25a. Cf. also the photocopy of this sketchbook in Object File BK-1971-25.

Bieke van der Mark, 2025

J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, no. 382, with earlier literature

B. van der Mark, 2025, 'attributed to Laurent Delvaux, Study for a Hovering Putto, Southern Netherlands, c. 1735 - c. 1750', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/200116071