Ecce Homo

Entry

At the time of its acquisition, this standing bronze figure of Christ presented to the people (Ecce Homo) was described by Leeuwenberg, on the suggestion of his Munich fellow curator Weihrauch, as ‘a rare product of Southern Netherlandish art from the middle of the XVIIth century’.² Leeuwenberg observed a similarity to works by the painter Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641). In his opus magnum of 1967, Weihrauch noted the existence of an identical bronze Ecce Homo in the Metropolitan Museum in New York,³ and its pendant figure, a standing semi-naked Christ at the Flagellation Column, both on their original socles.⁴ Unlike the present bronze, the two New York bronzes stand on their original socles, adorned in front with miniature plaquettes bearing depictions of kneeling putti presenting the Arma Christi. While both figures function convincingly as independent compositions, there is little doubt they were conceived as a pair. This is evident in the sculptor’s subtle playing with various contrasts in a kind of unified contrapposto conveyed via two freestanding figures: the clothed versus the semi-naked Christ, the one looking upward, the other looking downward, the one with the hip leaning left and the right foot extending forward, while the other assumes the opposite pose. This marked level of attention bestowed upon the composition of two pendant figures is characteristic of works by François du Quesnoy (1597-1643), a Flemish sculptor active in Rome. The same predilection for dualistic compositions is also discernible in Du Quesnoy’s bronze Apollo and Mercury in the Liechtenstein Collection,⁵ his bronze Apollo and Jupiter,⁶ the flagellators he made to accompany Alessandro Algardi’s famous flagellated Christ in silver or (gilt-)bronze, and his bronze Cato and Portia.⁷

The attribution of the Amsterdam and New York Christ figures to Du Quesnoy is also founded on the characteristically soft modelling of the body, the elegant pose, and especially the meek facial expression, filled with restrained religious pathos. A subtle detail on the Amsterdam bronze is the draping of Christ’s mantle over the socle’s reverse. On the original socle, his proper right foot would also have extended slightly over the front edge, as indicated by the square recess under this foot but also additionally confirmed by the New York bronze, where this detail survives intact. Yet a careful comparison of both figures – the flagellated Christ and the Ecce Homo – also reveals several small differences, related to the treatment of the face and hair and the respective schemes applied to the folds of the mantle, or in the case of the latter, the loincloth. Might such differences warrant that the Ecce Homo be more appropriately interpreted, not as a pendant by the hand of Du Quesnoy himself, but rather as an addition made by someone else? During this period, several instances of such combinations – i.e. the pairing of a work by Du Quesnoy with that of another artist – are known to have occurred. The best-known example is the aforementioned Flagellation of Christ by Algardi, which has survived in two different types: one in which both of the flagellators are by Algardi himself, the other with flagellators by Du Quesnoy.⁸ Another arrangement takes Du Quesnoy’s Christ on the Flagellation Column (the type in New York) and combines it with the seated St John the Baptist and a Moses by François Girardon (1628-1715) after Michelangelo. This ensemble appears in Girardon’s 1709 Galerie, with the three bronzes mounted on a single marquetry base to create an allegorical representation of the Old and New Testament with Christ in the middle.⁹

Accordingly, one must consider the possibility that the Amsterdam Ecce Homo might also be an invention of another artist, inspired to create a pendant for Du Quesnoy’s Christ at the Flagellation Column (specifically, the type in New York). In light of a version of the flagellated Christ that was recently acquired by the Rijksmuseum (BK-2021-191), such a notion gains added significance.¹⁰ A closer technical examination and comparison have shown this bronze to be the original pendant of the Amsterdam Ecce Homo, thus indicating that the two bronzes originally formed a pair identical to the New York bronzes. Beyond the apparent visual agreement in size (identical), finishing and patina, conclusive evidence is additionally provided by the fact that both works are cast in the very same bronze alloy. The alloy’s composition can be termed as characteristic of bronzes produced in the second half of the seventeenth century in Paris (a distinct deviation from the bronze employed in Rome during this same period).¹¹ As such, the two works are perfect manifestations of Du Quesnoy’s continuing renown in France in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century, lasting long after his death.¹²

If indeed the Amsterdam bronze and its pendant were both produced in France at the same time, might then a Parisian sculptor – e.g. François Girardon, as Pappot proposed – have been responsible both for the invention of the Ecce Homo and the arrangement with Du Quesnoy’s flagellated Christ?¹³ Pappot’s attribution garners some support when observing a treatment of the draperies similar to that of Girardon’s Seated St John the Baptist and other works by this sculptor.¹⁴ Yet why then would the inventor of the Ecce Homo, if already in possession of Du Quesnoy’s Christ at the Flagellation Column, not choose to pair the two bronzes and also include them in his Galerie? Despite this possible refutation, when acknowledging the thoughtfully measured balance between these two works – and the fact that his surviving oeuvre knows no uniform Christ type – no other sculptor currently emerges as the Ecce Homo’s inventor more likely than Du Quesnoy.¹⁵ Ostensibly, this is likewise underscored by the figure’s pose, which subtly echoes that of Du Quesnoy’s famed St Susanna in de Santa Maria di Loreto (Rome). Montagu’s hypothesis – that many of the small religious bronze figures made during the seventeenth century in Rome were in fact based on cast models for silver statuettes – may also very well apply to the present bronze, even in the absence of extant versions in silver.¹⁶

Frits Scholten, 2024
An earlier version of this entry was published in F. Scholten, M. Verber et al., From Vulcan’s Forge: Bronzes from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 1450-1800, exh. cat. London (Daniel Katz Ltd.)/Vienna (Liechtenstein Museum) 2005-06, no. 42