Title

Virgin with Child

Anonimous

Generic classification

Object

Date

Century

Cultural context / style

Dimensions

Material

Technique

Iconography / Theme

Provenance

Current location

Inventory Number in Current Collection

Object history

This piece carved on cetacean bone belonged to the collection of Stanislas Baron (1824-1910) who, according to the Louvre Museum's catalogue card, donated it to the institution in 1898. This Parisian antiquarian gave to various cultural organizations in France some pieces of Spanish medieval art, such as the fourteenth-century tiles from the Alhambra in Granada - which ended up in the Museum of Ceramics in Sèvres - as well as some ceramics from the mosque of Cordoba (S. A. Courrier, 1887: 25).

The personage had some control over the Hispanic pieces, given that another key work of Islamic eboraria is related to him: the so-called pyx of al-Mughira, which we know he sold to the museum in that year, at the same time as an oliphant and three ivory plaques with the iconography of Mary (Makariou: 2012, 23; Laclotte et al., 1989: 86). The news is relevant, since among them would be the piece we are dealing with here. On the other hand, we do not know if the horn came from Spain or, more possibly, from southern Italy as has been said recently but it seems to us quite significant that in 1898 Émile Molinier wrote, in a publication that saw the light that same year, that the Louvre's oliphant "comes from Spain" (Molinier, 1989: 482).

E. Molinier (1989: 486-487) provided key data on this piece, defending its Anglo-Saxon provenance, dating it to the 11th century and highlighting as the most remarkable element the strong Byzantine heritage and "an undeniable Greek influence". The author specified that the tablet with the Virgin had been carved by a western craftsman who "did not understand and could not accurately represent the headdress of the Byzantine virgins, composed of a kind of quilted cap and a veil; he interpreted this style in his own way and carved two bands" that start and hang from the temples. All these data are interesting for the history of aesthetic perception and the study of this work that Molinier considered the work of a clumsy sculptor incapable of conceiving the child with a naturalistic or classical canon.

However, the most important thing is that from the pages of the Gazette des beaux-arts it was affirmed with certainty that the plaque came from Spain, although the expert defended that it had not been carved in the Hispanic peninsular north, arguing that, for example, the cross of Fernando I and Sanchaof the National Archaeological Museum of Madrid did not resemble our piece at all. Following Maskell and his cataloguing of the South Kensington ivories, he related this presea with the Victoria and Albert Epiphany, dating both pieces to the eleventh century.

Moving forward in time, and as is always the case when we speak of ivory or bone carvings, the monumental work of Adolph Goldschmidt provided news about this bust, which he published photographed in table VI, figure 20, of his monumental work. The author dated it to 1100, but indicated that its provenance was Franco-Belgian -obviating its acquisition in Spain as an argument for locating its initial origin-, and insisted on the strong Byzantine influence visible in the figure's headdress. Again, he related it directly to the spitted sperm whale bone with the Epiphany of the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, considering both works of the "same local origin" (Goldschmidt, 1926: 13).

It is interesting, in order to analyze the history of the object, that European authors gave little or no relevance to the fact that the bone was bought in Spain. We would have to wait until the fifties and sixties for the article by John Hunt and the contribution of Carmen Bernis to provide arguments and reasoning to locate the origin of the carving in the north of the peninsula. From that moment until the most recent research, the Hispanic origin of the piece has been accepted, highlighting the whale carving as a key element and which has led to indicate that "perhaps it could even have been made by the same workshop" as the London Adoration (López-Monís, 2018: 11).

Scholars have not debated much about the function of this piece, we do not know if it was used as the cover of a codex, a gospel book or to ornament a reliquary.

Description

This whale or sperm whale bone plate, with some deformation, apparently due to the material and the passage of time, shows the image of the Virgin Mary with the Child, framed in a rectangular format, with important breaks in the lower part, in the left margin and, above all, on the right. In the corners there are 2 perforations and in the lower left margin a part of that hole, lost on the right. These holes undoubtedly allowed the piece to be nailed to the wooden core.

The composition is framed by a simple border made up of three bands, interrupted at the top by the large nimbus of the female figure. In the corners the carver included two palmettes with two large leaves that, like scrolls, twist on themselves and three leaves in the upper part of the plant. It seems that in the lower margins there were no such palmettes.

As usually happens with the ivories sculpted between the first quarter of the 12th century and until the middle of that century in the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula, especially those linked to the workshop of León, the sculptors took great care in ornamenting the nimbus with an exterior and an interior pearl. In the remaining space they included an inscription reading MARIA, drawn in square capitals, which do not provide conclusive data to date the writing, but could be framed in the mid-twelfth century.

The compositional center of the panel is the Marian effigy, where the richness of the headdress stands out, a key point that provides significant arguments about the nature of the work. The rich crown presents a straight front ornamented with a first level of settings that simulate precious stones, rhomboidal -placed horizontally- and alternated with double stones placed vertically. Everything is topped by a row of large pearls and the artist's interest in giving depth and perspective can be seen on the sides. The diadem is placed on the head and encircles the upper part of the veil and the textiles that, like a coif, emerge in folds at the top.

The face is framed by a veil that covers the hair and ears, which are hidden. Under the chin hangs a rich textile, it does not fulfill the functions of a chinstrap, as it does not seem to support the headdress, but it does recall its shape, although much more sumptuous. These parts of the fabrics were decorated with zigzags. This element has not received the attention it deserves and, for now, we do not know what this textile piece is called.

The Virgin presents a timeless, majestic face, marked by the presence of the large almond-shaped eyes whose pupil was simply marked with an awl, the flat nose and the rictus of the inverted U-shaped mouth, undoubtedly features known in the eboraria of the northwest peninsular in the middle of the 12th century.

She holds the child with her right hand, following a model that slightly diverges from the classic sedes sapientae, which places him on her lap, frontally. With the left hand she holds a vegetal element (which some authors identified with a fleur-de-lis), emphasizing the stylized and bony canon of the fingers.

The infant carries a large nimbus, with the cross kicked and a pearly border. It is significant that the face and hair show a much greater wear than the rest of the elements of the piece, we do not know if it is due to its devotional use, where the face of the Child God was touched, to the point of making the mouth, the nose and practically the eyes and the curls of the hair disappear. He wears a rich tunic, with a large knot protruding from his right shoulder, while he raises his right hand towards his mother's breast, with the other holding the mundus.

The Virgin's tunic and mantle present complex, rich draperies, which fall forming pleats and end in pearly orophreyses, closing at the level of the legs in V folds.

There are no traces of polychrome, or applications of settings, vitreous paste or stones, or the presence of traces of gold leaf.

There is no doubt of the closeness of this image, of all its details, posture of the figures, of the headdress and other formal resources, with the whale bone from the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. This point, once again, has led to think of the Hispanic origin of this Parisian piece, although some scholars have doubted it. The fact that Stanislas Baron bought it in Spain seems to us to be a strong argument that it was carved in our country.

Locations

• First half of the XII^th c.

  region

  Possible origin from Castile and Leon, Castilla y León (Spain)

• 1898

  private collection

  Stanislas Baron, Paris (France) *

• 1898 - present

  museum

  Louvre Museum, Paris (France)