Carved in the round from a single, solid piece of ivory, except for the Child’s outstretched arm.

The ebonized wooden pedestal with bone garland ornamentation dates from 1823 or earlier.

…; donated by Wathérus Duchateau (1735-1823/28), former burgomaster of Sint Pieter (Dutch Limburg), to the priest-in-training Joannes (‘Jean’) Maielle (1804-1881), Maastricht, 27 September 1823;¹¹As recorded in a written document, preserved in the Object File. from whom, fl. 880:1:-, to his nephew²²The son of his brother Nicolas Maielle (1806-1878). C.H.W. Gustave Maielle (1841-1929), Laren (North Holland), 1880; his daughter, H.C.M. Jeanne Bosch-Maielle (name later changed to Le Maille de Liers) (1890-1997), 1929; her daughter, Maria Francisca Marcelle Nahnya, Baroness Van Voorst tot Voorst (1927-2020), Eefde, 1997; by whom sold and partially donated to the museum, 2002

Object number: BK-2002-28

The historical provenance of this ivory Virgin and Child can be traced back directly to 27 September 1823. It was on this day that Walthérus du Chateau (Duchateau), then a former burgomaster of the village of Sint Pieter in the Dutch province of Limburg, presented the ivory to a young priest-in-training, Jean Maielle, presumably his grandnephew.³³Marie Duchateau (1737-1814) of Borgharen married Henry Maielle (b. c. 1735) in 1760. This ‘Marie’ was probably Walthérus Duchateau’s sister, at whose wedding Duchateau served as a witness. Nine children were born from the Maielle-Duchateau union, including one ‘Jean Maielle’ (b. 1775) and one ‘Walterus’ (b. 1779). See www.genealogy.henny-savenije.pe.kr (last consulted 13 December 2021). See also Nederland’s Patriciaat 28 (1942), pp. 182-86. As recorded in a written document that survives to the present day, the gift also included two additional ivory carvings, specifically, a crucifix and a statuette of St John the Evangelist, with the latter erroneously identified as St Joseph.⁴⁴This document is preserved in the Object File. The complete translated text of this ‘deed of gift’ reads: ‘I the undersigned, Walthérus Duchateau, currently without profession, residing in Berg, declare to Joannes Maielle student of theology residing in Maestright to have ceded and honoured (with) a Christ and two statues the one depicting St Joseph the other St Mary with the child Jesu which objects are made from ivory. Enacted in Maastricht, the 27 September In the year eighteen hundred twenty-three. W: Du Chateau’. Jean Maielle, who indeed went on to become a priest, later sold the ensemble for the total amount of 880 guilders and 1 stuiver to Gustave Maielle, the son of his brother Nicolas.⁵⁵The document recording this second transaction has also been preserved in the Object File. The letter’s complete translated text reads: ‘Purchased by the Heer Maielle_ / _An Ivory Crucifix with two ditto statuettes for fl. 800.00’. Added are ‘10 %’ is ‘80.00’ and ‘5’ making a total of ‘fl. 880.05’. An old black-and-white photograph on cardboard (c. 1855-70), was made by P. Weynen & Fils, Maastricht, sometime around 1855-70 (Object File RMA), see F. Scholten, ‘Rombout Verhulsts ivoren Madonna met Christus’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 51 (2003), pp. 102-17, esp. fig. 21. In 1855, the lithographer and daguerreotypist Peter (‘Pierre’) Weijnen moved from Aachen, Germany, to the present-day capital of Dutch Limburg accompanied by his son, Théodor (1835-1904). Together the two men operated a business in portrait photography under the name of P. Weijnen et Fils, located on the main square (Grote Markt) in Maastricht. Pierre Weijnen retired from the firm in 1865, at which time the son established a new studio on the city’s Helmstraat. Théodor later relocated the business to a larger building at Sint Jacobsstraat 7, where he died in 1904. Théodor’s widow and son, Jos, continued running the business under the business name Théodor Weijnen. See I. Evers, ‘De ontmanteling van Maastricht (1867-1870): Achtergronden bij 24 albuminefoto’s van Théodor Weijnen’, De Witte Raaf 110 (July-August 2004). Via Jean and his descendants, the ivories ultimately came into the possession of Baroness Van Voorst tot Voorst-Bosch, from whom the Rijksmuseum acquired the Virgin and Child in 2002. The remaining two ivories from this ensemble were subsequently sold.⁶⁶Sale Amsterdam (Sotheby’s), 21 December 2005, no. 240 (Crucifix) and 11 April 2006, no. 21 (St John). The St John can be attributed to the Mechelen sculptor Nicolaas van der Veken (1637-1703). The Christ’s corpus is an anonymous Flemish work. For a photographic image of the complete ensemble, see F. Scholten, ‘Rombout Verhulsts ivoren Madonna met Christus’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 51 (2003), pp. 102-17, esp. fig. 1.

The three ivories listed in the deed of gift were never conceived as an original artistic and iconographic unity, a conclusion not only confirmed by obvious stylistic differences among the works but also by the fact that Mary is accompanied by the Christ Child. This iconographic anomaly was apparently accepted in 1823, possibly explaining why St John was mistakenly thought to be a St Joseph. Of the three works, only the Virgin and Child statuette bears the signature of Rombout Verhulst (1624-1698), a Flemish sculptor active in the Dutch Republic from 1646 up until his death in 1698.

Verhulst’s standing as one of the leading sculptors in the Dutch Republic after 1650 is reflected by his inclusion in Jan Vos’s Zeege der schilderkunst (Triumph of Painting), published in 1654.⁷⁷C. Hofstede de Groot, Quellenstudien zur holländische Kunstgeschichte, The Hague 1893, pp. 446-47, and G.J.M. Weber, Der Lobtopos des ‘lebenden’ Bildes, Jan Vos und sein “Zeege der Schilderkunst” von 1654, Hildesheim/Zürich/New York 1991. By this time, the sculptor had already been working in the Northern Netherlands for several years. Shortly after 1650, Verhulst entered the Amsterdam workshop of his fellow countryman Artus Quellinus I (1609-1668), who himself had moved to the city to oversee the sculptural decoration of the new town hall (the present-day Royal Palace on the Dam Square). To this project carried out on the grandest scale, Verhulst contributed a number of essential works. The presence of his signature on several marble reliefs made for the galleries conveys Verhulst’s relative independence within the Quellinus atelier, but also his renown as an artist in the Northern Netherlands acquired already by this time.

Archival sources from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries occasionally make mention of cabinet sculpture by Rombout Verhulst. Prior to the discovery of the present signed ivory Virgin and Child,⁸⁸The statue was not entirely unknown. As yet unaware of the ivory’s existence, Van Notten made no mention of it in his 1907 monograph on the sculptor (M. van Notten, Rombout Verhulst, beeldhouwer 1624-1698: Een overzicht zijner werken, The Hague 1907). On 2 November 1935, the Virgin and Child, together with the two other ivories named in Walthérus’s deed of gift, were shown to C.M.A.A. Lindeman, then the Rijksmuseum’s curator of sculpture (1934-1948). Lindeman was convinced of the quality of all three works, also stating that he was unaware of any other ivories by Verhulst. At this time, he also inquired whether the works might be given to the museum on loan (correspondence in the Object File). When in 1938 Gustave Maielle Sr’s possessions were to be divided among his three children, Dr H.E. van Gelder, director of the Haags Gemeentemuseum in The Hague, was approached for his expert opinion regarding the ivories. Van Gelder’s response conveys not only his findings, but also provides insight into his knowledge of and appreciation for Verhulst. The complete translated text of this letter is: ‘Highly esteemed Sir, I have examined the ivory figures closely and believe that the Madonna is indeed a work by R. Verhulst. Regarding the apostle, I am not so sure. However, there is no objection, especially as the statuette in any case comes from his workshop and that he himself, for example, made the head. The value of such pieces in our country is not so highly assessed. The Dutch taste is not fond of this finer ivory work, and especially religious scenes result in meagre amounts at auction sales. I am therefore of the opinion that both these statuettes together are worth 5-600 gld. I have not seen the Christ; if this also bears the signature, then I would presume one could appraise it at 4 à 500 gld. Without signature, however, it would be f 100 less. Should you be interested in selling the Madonna, then I would be willing to pay, for example, f 400. I will keep the pieces here, until I receive further notice from you.’ Letter from H.E. van Gelder addressed to mr. G. Maielle in Laren (North Holland), dated 14 February 1938, preserved in the Object File. however, only one surviving documented work of Kleinplastik by the sculptor was known: the wood-carved mantelpiece frieze in the Oranjezaal at Huis Ten Bosch Palace (The Hague) – since 1805 mounted above a doorway – depicting a procession of triumphant putti.⁹⁹B. Brenninkmeyer-De Rooy, ‘Notities betreffende de decoratie van de Oranjezaal in Huis Ten Bosch’, Oud Holland 96 (1982), no. 3, pp. 135-36. F. Scholten, ‘Rombout Verhulsts ivoren Madonna met Christus’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 51 (2003), pp. 102-17, esp. fig. 16. Furthermore, there exists the rather enigmatic listing of a gilded bedstead carved by Verhulst in inventory of Rembrandt’s insolvent possessions from 1656,¹⁰¹⁰W.L. Strauss and M. van der Meulen, The Rembrandt Documents, New York 1979, p. 369, no. 197. as well as entries concerning painting frames also of his making.¹¹¹¹P.J.J. van Thiel and C.J. de Bruyn Kops, P.J.J. van Thiel and C.J. de Bruyn Kops, Framing in the Golden Age: Picture and Frame in 17th-century Holland, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1984, pp. 49-50. The 1654 inventory lists Noch twee gesneen lysten van Verhulst gesneen, voor ses en dartich gulden (Two more carved frames carved by Verhulst, for 36 guilders). In a written memorandum made by Ryklof van Goens, Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies, the following entry was made: Aen Van der Hulst voor lysten 350 gulden (To Van der Hulst for frames 350 guilders). In the eighteenth century, the sculptor’s name also occasionally appears in connection with statuettes carved in ivory and wood cited in Northern Netherlandish collections and sales.¹²¹²The sale of Pieter Locquet’s collection, held on 22/24 September 1783, listed an ivory group of Hercules and Cacus by Verhulst. Additionally, John Hope’s collection also included a work by Verhulst, along with other works by De Keyser, Quellinus, Bossuit, Vinkenbrinck, Algardi and Giambologna. See J.W. Niemeyer, ‘De kunstverzameling van John Hope (1737-1784)’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 32 (1981), pp. 127-232, esp. pp. 216-17, nos. 445-49, 452, 454 and 455-58. With respect to the few cabinet sculptures attributed to Verhulst, the present ivory Virgin and Child proves a valuable touchstone.¹³¹³The attribution of a boxwood-carved Venus to Verhulst (Museum de Fundatie, Heino, inv. no. 735), for example, can no longer be sustained, even if acknowledging that the composition closely approaches that of Verhulst’s marble Venus relief made for the Amsterdam town hall. See F. Scholten, ‘Rombout Verhulsts ivoren Madonna met Christus’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 51 (2003), pp. 102-17, esp. pp. 113-14. By contrast, the attribution of a small marble Venus on the Amsterdam art market around 1990 to Verhulst does prove convincing, see F. Scholten, ‘Twee vroege statuettes van Rombout Verhulst’, Antiek 25 (1991), no. 7, pp. 345-53. Highly similar to this carving, both in style and technique, are two ivory reliefs in the former Winkler collection: a scene of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife and a scene of Isaac Blessing Jacob.¹⁴¹⁴C. Theuerkauff, Elfenbein: Sammlung Reiner Winkler Band II, Munich 1994, nos. 48, 49 (as ‘Northern Netherlands, circle of Verhulst and Van Bossuit’). Besides the characteristic treatment of the faces and hair, one discerns here the same sensitivity in the handling of the carved surface and an equal eye for detail, interchanged with broad surfaces and drapery folds as encountered on the present figure of Mary.

In conceiving the present group, Verhulst undoubtedly based Mary’s pose and facial type on one of the best-known contemporaneous statues in Rome, François du Quesnoy’s Santa Susanna in the Santa Maria di Loreto (fig. a). Yet the question remains whether he ever saw this work with his own eyes: despite the mere mention of a trip to Rome in Terwesten’s manuscript on artists from The Hague, there exists no known documentation confirming he actually spent time in Italy.¹⁵¹⁵M. van Notten, Rombout Verhulst, beeldhouwer 1624-1698: Een overzicht zijner werken, The Hague 1907, p. 5. Du Quesnoy’s Susanna also enjoyed great notoriety north of the Alps. Verhulst could very well have based his Virgin on one of the plaster reproductions in circulation.¹⁶¹⁶M. Fransolet, François du Quesnoy, sculpteur d’Urbain VIII, 1597-1643, Brussels 1942, p. 105. M. Boudon-Machuel, François du Quesnoy 1597-1643, Paris 2005, pp. 196-210; and for a still life by Cornelis van der Meulen from 1688 with a small model of the Susanna in plaster, see sale New York (Christie’s), 15 October 1998, no. 1. Artus Quellinus, who during his years in Italy (before 1639) worked as an assistant in Du Quesnoy’s atelier and was undoubtedly in direct contact with the master’s most famous works in Rome, also likely played a role in the dissemination of the statue’s model in the Low Countries.

Even if Verhulst’s statuette could be traced back to its model in Rome, Quellinus’s direct influence on his younger assistant must not be underestimated. Despite differences in scale and material, a striking similarity can be observed between the ivory-carved Virgin and several carved works made by the master and his workshop for the new Amsterdam town hall. Numerous points of agreement emerge, for example, when comparing the present figure to Quellinus’s terracotta models of Prudentia (BK-AM-51-6) and Justitia (BK-AM-51-5). Justitia’s pose – albeit with the lower half in rendered in mirror image – is very similar to that of Verhulst’s Mary. Facial type, hair and details in the clothing also bear a surprising correspondence. A slight disparity can indeed be discerned when comparing the Virgin’s face to that of Lady Justice, the latter having softer and more girlish features. This is more than compensated, however, by Mary’s greater facial resemblance to Prudentia.

Also noteworthy are commonalities between the ivory Virgin and Child and two signed sculptures by Verhulst in the Amsterdam town hall. The marked resemblance to the classical female figures depicted in the carved reliefs of Stilswigentheid (Silence) and Venus with her Children Cupid and Anteros (fig. b), it almost appears Verhulst used the same model for three different works: thrice we see the same face, the same slightly plump arms and the characteristic ‘dough-like’ strands of hair, whether falling over the shoulder in the form of braided ponytails or pulled back behind the head. The close stylistic similarity suggests, though with some reserve, that the ivory Virgin and Child was carved between 1650 and 1658, i.e. in Verhulst’s years working as a (semi-)independent sculptor in Amsterdam.

The buyer or patron who commissioned the present ivory could therefore be sought among the art-loving regents or merchants of Amsterdam. In the seventeenth century, images of the Virgin regularly appear in the estate inventories of city burghers, often forming a natural part of art collections no less important than, for example, painted scenes of classical gods and heroes.¹⁷¹⁷J.M. Montias, ‘A Business Partner and a Pupil: Two Conjectural Essays on Rembrandt’s Entourage’, in A. Chong and M. Zell (eds.), Rethinking Rembrandt, Zwoll/Boston 2002, pp. 129-158, esp. pp. 150-51 (for the insolvent inventory of possessions of the Amsterdam silk merchant Marten van den Broeck, dating from 6 September 1650, whose art collection included not only five paintings by Rembrandt but also three paintings with depictions of the Virgin Mary) and p. 154. At a sale in 1638, the dealer Hendrick van Uylenburgh even purchased 96 painted images of Mary. A boxwood Virgin and Christ, attributed to the 17th-century Amsterdam sculptor Albert Vinckenbrinck was catalogued in the collection of Cornelis Ploos van Amstel, see C. Theuerkauff, ‘Skulpturen’, in T. Laurentius, J.W. Niemeyer and G. Ploos van Amstel, Cornelis Ploos van Amstel 1726-1798: Kunstverzamelaar en prentuitgever, Assen 1980, pp. 62-77, esp. 75 (no. 70). Examples include the trompe-l’oeil niches and cartouches framing statuettes in painted floral still lifes by Daniel Seghers. One such painting, presented to Stadholder Frederick Henry as a gift in 1645, was later integrated in a decoration scheme for one of Amalia van Solms’s art cabinets at Huis Ten Bosch palace, from where it ultimately entered the Mauritshuis collection.¹⁸¹⁸W. Prohaska, ‘Das geistliche Stilleben-Blumenkränze und Girlanden’, in W. Seipel, Das flämische Stilleben 1550-1680, exh. cat. Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum)/Essen (Villa Hügel) 2002, pp. 321-25. F. Scholten, ‘Rombout Verhulsts ivoren Madonna met Christus’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 51 (2003), pp. 102-17, esp. fig. 14. Verhulst’s ivory Virgin and Child was quite possibly originally intended for a small niche in a collector’s cabinet, with the Christ Child’s extended right arm thus enhancing the effect of spatial depth. The fact that Verhulst signed the present work serves moreover as an indication that the work’s function was by no means solely devotional, and that his main desire was to underscore the work’s artistic quality.

Another possibility is that Verhulst carved the statuette for a patron in Mechelen, as he is known to have maintained contacts in his native city even after settling in the Dutch Republic.¹⁹¹⁹M. van Notten, Rombout Verhulst, beeldhouwer 1624-1698: Een overzicht zijner werken, The Hague 1907, p. 76. Given that the St John figure can also be attributed to a sculptor from Mechelen – Nicolaas van der Veken – it is conceivable that all three ivories mentioned in the 1823 deed of gift were carved as autonomous works in Mechelen but then later unified as a collector’s ensemble in the eighteenth century, before ultimately finding their way to Maastricht.

Frits Scholten, 2024

F. Scholten, ‘Rombout Verhulsts ivoren Madonna met Christus’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 51 (2003), pp. 102-17; S. Glasbergen, Rombout Verhulst 1624–1698. Beeldhouwer in de Lage Landen, Zwolle 2024, pp. 130-32 and fig. 85; F. Scholten, ‘After Quellinus: Bartholomeus Eggers and Rombout Verhulst’, in B. van der Mark (ed.), Artus Quellinus: Sculptor of Amsterdam, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Royal Palace Amsterdam/ Rijksmuseum) 2025, pp. 172-81, esp. p. 177 and fig. 9

F. Scholten, 2024, 'Rombout Verhulst, Virgin and Child, Amsterdam, c. 1650 - c. 1655', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/200419601